And the cancer thing.
Ah, a medical condition? Like nicotine addiction?
Of course, the smokers could all go out and buy e-cigs.
Pretty much this.
I don’t go into a “terrible fit,” it triggers my asthma. You may not be aware, but asthma is controllable. I don’t have to go to the ER every time it happens.
And as shown in this thread, I’m far from the only person with such an allergy.
As soon as someone can show me any other public behavior where people feel they are entitled to give other people cancer and blow pollution into their lungs, we can expand the discussion to that too. Fat people on their scooters won’t make other people fat by passing nearby.
What they should do is get the fat people to start smoking, that would solve both problems soon enough.
While there are some studies (typically sponsored by restaurant and bar associations) showing a decline in business after smoking bans were enacted, most studies (especially well-designed ones) demonstrate a neutral or positive effect on business:
“Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoke-free policies. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with bans and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the “best-designed” studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.”
An example of one such study.
We had doomsday predictions in Ohio from business interests when the statewide indoor smoking ban was being debated, but in the years since its passage bars and restaurants appear to be hanging in there nicely, despite the legions of smokers who supposedly have stopped going out and instead are spending nights and weekends alone, puffing away sullenly in their smoke-filled basements. :dubious:
Casino gambling was legalized state-wide here in PA recently so sovereign tribes have nothing to do with it. What I meant by “different rules for different folks” was that the deep-pocket casino corporations got the law bent in their favor due to their money and the influence that buys. Political contributions make all the difference. If indoor smoking is such an huge health risk, why would it be any different in a casino as opposed to a large restaurant or indoor arena?
Bri2k
Funny.
/takes a deep, sullen puff. 
Granted the stats on this seem way open to interpretation. google it - for every study showing a benefit to business, it seems there’s another showing it has harmed business and contributed to the loss of jobs.
The CDC link you cite is a regressive analysis, not a study based on real numbers, but on a theoretical model, and shows no difference either way, BTW. Also the only real study cited in that analysis was one 2002 study in El Paso, TX, which is compromised and/or subject to “at least three limitations” according to the link you posted, under Editorial Notes. So…you might want to find a more authoritative and up-to-date cite to back up your assertions.
My basic premise is based on a somewhat Libertarian idea that business and property owners ought to be able to allow* legal *activities (such as smoking) on their premises, and let market forces determine what works best for both the business owner and the consumer. Also, as a (I think) considerate smoker, I’m not aggrieved by having to curtail my addiction and certainly don’t want to cause anyone else distress. Although I do appreciate non-smokers’ acknowledgement that I am put out and distressed by not being able to fully enjoy a restaurant or bar experience any more since the ban.
While the end result is the same and the true motivations suspect, CA got its law passed as a worker’s health thing. They claim was that the health of workers is compromised by having them work in an environment with toxins that are known to cause harm. Those toxins being second hand smoke. It is the same, legally, if there was a constant leak of poisonous gas in the work place.
Yeah but that’s California, the most over-regulated nanny state in the nation. I don’t take California laws or their premises seriously.
Constant leak of poisonous gas, give me a break. Look up longevity and health stats for different countries - I realise that correlation does not = causation but some of the heavier-smoking countries (look up Cuba) in the world report better longevity, lower child-mortality rates and overall better health than the USA, California (not hardly the healthiest state in the nation) in particular.
Like the ones cited here for example?
A 2010 analysis of economic outcomes of smoke-free laws stated, ―there is clear evidence that smokefree legislation does not hurt restaurant or bar businesses, and in some cases business may improve.
In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) examined the extensive literature on the economic impact of smoke-free policies on the hospitality sector. The analysis noted that methodologically sound research studies consistently conclude that smoke-free policies do not have an adverse economic impact on the business activity of restaurants, bars, or establishments catering to tourists, with many studies finding a small positive effect of these policies. These studies analyzed official reports of sales, employment and the number of restaurant and bar establishments."
It’s clear that a number of bars and restaurant owners did not like having voters decide on a nonsmoking policy that they’d be responsible for implementing in their businesses. It also seems likely that such businessmen would be quick to blame any downturn in their income on smoking bans, without solid analysis on what was truly to blame.
As noted, this worldview leaves out employees who in our society are protected from hazardous working conditions.
The ridiculousness of attributing any favorable health data to a high rate of smoking needs no further comment, except as it reflects on your disdain for the health of nonsmokers.
New studies just released in Ohio show a drop in reported heart attacks since the 2007 statewide public smoking ban went into effect, plus findings debunking claims of depressed business for bars and restaurants:
*"Two other studies released by the department showed the ban has had no economic impact on restaurants or bars. Reviews of restaurant and bar sales between 2003 and 2010 showed a drop immediately after the ban was put in place, but business quickly bounced back.
“After accounting for unemployment and seasons of the year, the analysis found the Smoke-Free Workplace Act did not have an economic effect on restaurants and bars in the state as a whole,” said Elizabeth Klein, of the Ohio State University College of Public Health. She worked on the study."*
In a lot of states, you cannot even smoke a cigar or pipe in a tobacco shop. This is a store that only sells tobacco and pipes. I’m not even talking about the head shops that masquerade as tobacco stores. These owners are hurting because of it. Used to be, you could buy a stick, smoke it in their awesome leather sofa lounge, have a cup of good coffee, and maybe decide to buy a few more – or the entire box.
As for the employees, don’t work at a tobacconist. You don’t have to be a waitress at a smoking restaurant or bar, which is pointless anyhow as so few exist.
Legislators and bosses can never take the open air from smokers successfully. It’s asinine to try. It’s sad and remarkable how so many of the same people who would normally be all for the protection of personal freedoms actively desire prohibition. Whatever. I hope you’re still alive when they come after salt, sugar, fats, loud headphones, contact sports, or anything else you might, as an adult, enjoy despite the consequences.
Ah, the old argument that only the personal freedom of smokers count. If they want to make everyone else miserable, tough. As the old line goes, “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” As soon as your smoke starts intruding on other people, it’s no longer just a matter of your personal preferences.
And of course, the really ironic thing about that argument is that it isn’t about “freedom” at all; smokers are addicts. They aren’t free.
It’s outside. I get some air for myself too. You already have 25 to 30 feet within any doorway in most places; you don’t get or need all of creation.
I smoke briar tobacco pipes. I am not an addict no matter how broadly you care to define it. I last smoked over one month ago. This is normal. I get no nicotine withdrawals or cravings, yet some of the blends I smoke are strong in nicotine. The same goes for millions of pipe and cigar smokers. Personally, I don’t care for cigarettes, but I don’t try to legislate my tastes.
If that level of depression is normal for smokers, I’m glad I never took up the habit.
Note: thanks for the edit clarification. 
By the way, we’d be highly justified regulating contact sports the same way we do public smoking. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been walking down the street and had a football player in helmet and pads barrel into me. There oughta be a law!
Do you have any public schools in your neighborhood? Do you pay property taxes (or if you rent, does your landlord) to the school to at least partially fund the pads and gear that they wear so they don’t get hurt? And when they do get hurt do they ever get taken to a hospital that receives money from the city/state/federal government? This is mostly a joke, but even high school level contact sports is still hitting you in the wallet.
Which is why failures of school bond issues often results in withdrawal of funding for sports in general with students hit up for the bill (“pay to play”).
I don’t see school contact sports singled out for banning based on supposed dangers, so this particular slippery slope argument doesn’t have much traction as far as I’m concerned. In general, slippery slope arguments are a poor means of judging the merits of any particular regulatory effort. If something dumb is proposed, we have this thing called majority rule which generally governs what regulations/laws are enacted.
In the case of public smoking bans, the welfare of the roughly 80% of American adults who are nonsmokers has triumphed over the convenience of the 20% who continue to smoke. And those numbers will get even more lopsided in the future.
You betcha…
And remove all the warnings on products.
This will do more for this earth than anything else ever could.
One of the reasons that the clinic/hospital that I go to went completely tobacco free was because smokers tended to smoke right at the doorway. Not 25 feet away, or even 10 feet away. Nope, they liked to light up right at the “No Smoking” sign. They’d exit the building, with their packs and lighters in hand, and light up as soon as they stepped outside. Then they’d stop there, and smoke.
Not all smokers did this. But there was enough of a problem that the clinic decided that they’d rather just ban all smoking, instead of having the security guards trot outside every quarter hour to remind the smokers to move along. Both patient and staff smokers did this…and you’d think that the staff would know better, or care a little bit.
I assure you the mafia is just licking its chops. I predicted ten years ago that there would be a prohibition movement within 20 years. Madness!