Discuss: Going out in a smoke-free world

Coffey went after smoking. Now he's going after dogs! I thought it would be fast food but now he wants to ban dogs from sports fields. Man, you folks who can vote for this clown better get him out of office. He's going to ban everything in sight soon. hahahaha Course I don't have a dog and they sometimes annoy me but geez, a dog ban? hahahahahaha

25 July 13, 2007 - 4:05pm | alaskanni

More or less?

Well, I can say that the smoking ban is hurting the small neighborhood bars in my area. That comes straight from the bar tenders mouths. Since the smoking ban started they have seen a drastic loss of customers especially on cold or rainy days. Sunny days when people can sit outside it's not as bad but the smokers aren't staying as long as they used to now and the non smokers that say they are going to go out more often aren't going out to the little mom and pop bars. I don't believe this will hurt the dance clubs like koots or rumrunners but if it's already hurting the small bars in the summer what is going to happen to them in the winter? 9 out of 10 people in places like Georges, the Hideaway the Throphy lounge, jj's etc were smokers. The non smokers aren't coming in and picking up the slack now that many of the smokers quit going. Lots of my friends who smoke quit going out or only stop in for 1 beer because they can't have a smoke with their drink. I walk in and the only person in the bar is the bartender. It's so much fun now. I'll take the smoke smell and the fun over the lack of people and friends any day. Sad situation for the small bar owner.

24 July 2, 2007 - 6:34pm | user6244

Dear Smokers, You are the

Dear Smokers,

You are the scum of the earth. Bad enough that you are intent on committing suicide, but with your noxious fumes you are committing nothing less than murder too.

The preceding statement should sound pretty familiar by now. If you believe it, don't bother to read any further. But if you're skeptical, consider this: you're being made into scapegoats by people who are nowhere near as honest and noble as is commonly assumed. In fact a lot of them are downright nasty, and it's about time you started standing up to them.

From July 1st, smoking is banned in every pub, restaurant and club in England - including private clubs, but then again a pub is private property too. I could bemoan the loss of property rights; I could also have a good rant about the loss of tolerance and free choice. But the real issue is that the only possible justification for this ban is blatantly, and provably, so phoney that it stinks to high heaven. I refer, of course, to the grotesquely-hyped but elusive phantom of 'secondhand smoke'.

Some people seem to think smoking is being banned just because they don't like it, or because it has in some circles become unfashionable. But these are no concerns of the government, and they can easily be addressed by good ventilation systems and/or separate spaces, according to market demand.

If, on the other hand, tobacco smoke in the air - even on well-ventilated premises, even in separate rooms, even, if the antismoking brigade has its way, outside - is putting innocent bystanders in mortal danger, then I'd say tobacco should be completely illegal, since it would clearly be worse than heroin. But first, I'd want to see at least one proven case of death caused by ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke). Because I, and many other people - scientists, academics, activists, and just plain skeptics - have been researching this issue for many years, and we haven't come across one yet.

Take a look at www.davehitt.com. Mr Hitt's article 'Name Three' is a grimly hilarious account of how he went to just about every antismoking authority in the USA in a fruitless quest to find three real-life cases. I've been in debates myself in which I've asked antismokers to name one, and been repeatedly ignored. Once I was told this information could not be revealed because of 'professional etiquette'.

Just last month, I had an article about smoking bans published in a German magazine. The editor removed the line 'there is not one proven documented case of death caused by secondhand smoke', claiming that there was one such case in Italy. I investigated. The case in question was the death of Monica Crema, whose husband succesfully sued her employer, Pariba Bank, claiming that she had been killed by smoke at work. SECONDHAND SMOKE KILLS! said the headlines. But the verdict was appealed. This time there was a proper trial, and it was found that Ms Crema had actually died from a food allergy. And the headlines said . . . well, nothing, actually.

I could say that even a few cases would still be pretty insignificant compared to all the deaths irrefutably caused by booze, or cars, or even prescription drugs. But the fact is that the antismokers' case for ETS collapses when subjected to the slightest scrutiny. Unable to produce actual proof, they tell us that ETS kills because they say so, and we wouldn't understand, so we must take their word for it. And at this point I need to 'zoom out,' so to speak, and briefly address the bigger picture.

There's an old saying: 'trust me, I'm a doctor'. But I'm asking you to trust me because I'm not. Many people these days, including newspaper editors and politicians, are simply not willing to challenge or question medical authorities. They are assumed to be the only people on earth who are never wrong, biased, dishonest, or corrupt. But unquestioning faith in any authority is naïve and dangerous, and this is just as true in the case of 'health' as in the case of religion or politics (they all claim to know what's best for us, after all). If you don't think I - or you - have the 'credentials' to question the Chief Medical Officer, then we can't question the Prime Minister or the Pope either - in which case they are free to pursue all the phoney wars and Inquisitions they fancy. I don't claim any special insight; the only thing that sets me apart from a lot of other people on the issue of smoking is that I've kept an open mind and really looked into the evidence. And I can promise you that on this issue (and frankly, quite a few others) the mainstream medical power structure is, not to put too fine a point on it, full of shit. Not to mention increasingly mean-spirited and dictatorial.

'Public health' was originally created to tackle big, tangible issues like communicable disease, malnutrition and industrial pollution. In recent years, though, it has shifted its attention to interfering in almost every facet of the private lives of people who aren't sick: generally-comfortable Europeans and Americans, who, whether we smoke or not, are overwhelmingly likely to live longer and healthier lives than ever in history. Thus Public Health justifies its agenda by fearmongering and statistical junk science. The World Health Organisation, one of the biggest forces driving Antitobacco, is a case in point. While AIDS, typhoid and dysentery are rampant in the Third World, and two million children a year die because of lack of clean water, the WHO spends 76% of its budget on paying its staff and renting fancy offices in places like Geneva. In recent years it has turned to the pharmaceutical industry for funding, and funnily enough, has at the same time promoted the persecution of you, the smoker, to the top of its agenda. I say 'funnily' because these noble souls couldn't possibly be biased, could they? I mean, what with the world's 1.2 billion smokers being a target market for pharmaceutical nicotine products and antidepressants?

This is not a conspiracy theory. The antismoking movement has phenomenal momentum because (a) it is being given a free ride by politicians and media, and (b) it is stinking rich. Pharmaceutical money is a big reason, but there are others, including punitive taxation and a little thing called the Master Settlement Agreement, struck between the tobacco industry and US states in 1999, which gives American antismokers alone close to a $1 billion a year to play with. It's not surprising that more and more interests have climbed on the antismoking bandwagon. What is surprising is that so many people persist in seeing it as a righteous crusade. I repeat: these people are nannies and bullies, and unelected and unaccountable bodies like the WHO should not be dictating policy to democratically-elected governments, especially when, in the case of smoking bans, their own research has proven that 'secondhand smoke' doesn't hurt anyone

That's right: only a small minority of studies show any risk from ETS, and they're not the best ones. The biggest and most scientifically credible studies so far are still the 10-year European one by the WHO and the 39-year Californian one by Profs. Enstrom and Kabat, neither of which were able to find any danger. Many other studies have shown that exposure to ETS actually reduces risk. This sounds absurd, but it's what happens when your numbers are so tiny and unreliable that they can go either way. If you do enough studies and play around with the statistics enough, you can 'prove' just about anything.

That much-publicised '25% risk increase' is actually an insignificant increase on an already insignificant risk. And that's only if you accept, in the first place, a statistic cherry-picked from a small minority of flawed and biased studies. As for smoke containing arsenic, so does tap water. And benzene? So does coffee. In every case, the amount is too small to hurt you.To spin this kind of 'evidence' into a public health menace, and the basis for legislation to turn a quarter of the population into pariahs, is outrageous. It would make just as much sense to ban food in restaurants because cooking causes carcinogens, or ban music in nightclubs because someone's hearing might be damaged.

Are you getting the picture yet?

I've heard antismokers say the ban is not a witch hunt against smokers, but all about health. But the ban will do nothing for the health of the nation, and a witch hunt against smokers is exactly what it is (why do you think they're trying to ban smoking outside, too?) Antismokers are masters of double-talk. For instance they're not forbidding smoking in the pub - that sounds, well, forbidding - they're making the pub 'smoke-free'! They're giving you more freedom, not less! Isn't that wonderful?

Okay. Go on. Say it: 'smoking is bad, so isn't anything that discourages it good?' But it's never good when authorities lie to us and then use those lies as justification for draconian laws. Besides, a lot of the 'scientific' fearmongering about 'passive' smoking is simply an extension of what has been done to exaggerate the dangers of 'active' smoking. There is a risk, for some people, in heavy long-term cigarette smoking, just as there are risks in heavy long-term drinking, or eating a lot of certain foods, or driving a car too fast too often . . . the currently fashionable desire for 'zero risk' is not only illusory but frankly childish. Even lung cancer - the one disease which can be convincingly linked, statistically, to smoking - only happens to a small minority of smokers, and even then, usually within the normal age-range of death. Antismokers never talk about what happens in real life, but about things like a '2,000% risk increase'. Well, maybe. If I buy 20 lottery tickets instead of one, I would have a 2,000% increased chance of winning. But I'm still very, very unlikely to win.

Anyway, all we hear about smoking nowadays is the potential danger, which builds the impression that danger is all there is. But tobacco is a natural antidepressant, improves memory and concentration, has a strong protective effect against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and several other diseases, helps in controlling weight, and, for God's sake, it gives pleasure. Why is it so hard to get across the point that pleasure is essential to human life, and that pleasure is healthier than fear?

But, you say,120,000 deaths per year are caused by 'smoking-related diseases'. Here we go again: firstly, it's only an 'estimate'; and secondly, a 'smoking-related disease' is not a disease proven to be caused by smoking. They've just added up all the deaths from any disease in which someone thinks smoking may be a factor. Thus the total includes thousands of nonsmokers who die from, say, bronchitis or strokes. It also includes people who quit smoking 20 years before, and smokers who die of heart attacks in their 80s. It's not exactly a lie. But it sure as hell is misleading, and deliberately so, and it's these people, not you, the smoker, who should be ashamed of themselves.

Are you getting the picture yet? If so, what are you going to do about it?

I have a few suggestions.
- Get educated. Smokers need to know the true facts; the more we know, the better we can fight back. For a more detailed exploration of the issues, you could start with my own essay Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State (downloadable from www.joejackson.com) or if not the essay, then the long list of websites, books and articles which comes at the end. Check out www.forestonline.org and www.forces.org, two long-established campaigning groups who have, among other things, the full downloadable details of every 'secondhand smoke' study ever done. Other good places to go are www.antibrains.com and www.smokersclubinc.com.
- Join a campaigning group and donate money! FOREST gets support from tobacco companies, but it's the only one that does, and they're still poor compared to the 'Antis'. FORCES and in the UK, Freedom 2 Choose (www.freedom2choose.co.uk), who are mounting a legal challenge to the ban, need your support.
- Do not allow yourself to be bullied. Do not apologise to anyone; on the contrary, explain to people why you're a victim of unjust discrimination. You are enjoying a legal pleasure with a long and honourable history, and you're contributing £10 billion a year to your country in tax revenue. Be proud.
- Bad laws deserve to be defied, flouted, protested, or circumvented in any way possible. Carry a pocket ashtray so they can't get you for littering. Start a petition. Lobby your MP. Otherwise, forget about being polite and not rocking the boat. No oppressed group ever changed things without calling attention to itself. This means civil disobedience and making the law as difficult as possible to enforce.
- Wherever possible, do not patronise places which forbid smoking. Do patronise places which make an effort to accommodate smokers, either legally outside or illegally inside.
- Socialise at home. Create your own pub. Invite your friends. Smoke, save money, drink what you like, close when you like, and generally do what you like without being spied on by CCTV cameras. The only way to turn the Hospitality Industry into a better ally is to withdraw your support.

The smoking ban will not last forever. But the less resistance there is, the longer it will last, the more the 'Antis' will crow about what a great success it is, and the more it will serve as a template for all kinds of other social engineering. Every witch hunt seems invincible until a few people have the nerve to stand up to it. Stop being so damn passive. And don't despair; after all, we (not the likes of ASH) are the Party People. Don't stop the party.

23 July 1, 2007 - 5:29pm | alaskapat528

Hey, answer this.

How many of you non-smokers fill your body with fat, fast foods? How many of you drink booze? I bet you even hold your breath when you are spraying cleaners in your home. How many of you are overweight and have any idea what your BMI is......hmmmm, and you worry about smoke.

22 July 1, 2007 - 2:06pm | daveheriot

Bars will go out of business?

You smokers keep talking how your favorite bars will go out of business if no smoking is allowed. You pathetic addicts would let your favorite establishment go out of business just because you have to step outside to have a smoke every once in a while? Unbelievable.
I guess the bar staying open really is'nt that important to you after all, is it?

July 1, 2007 - 6:14pm | snowbunnie

It's called freedom

And that's what's important. Non smokers gave away a personal business owners freedom, so it's not in the smokers hands to keep the place open now - it's up to the non smokers that said they could keep them open without the smokers!

July 1, 2007 - 10:41pm | user6244

Not given away

Anti-tobacco and people who were duped into voting for this ban took the freedom away like thiefs.

21 July 1, 2007 - 2:46am | lobout

Ian

I'll go out about the same, but I'll have much more choice of where to sit since I don't have to avoid any smoky areas now

20 June 30, 2007 - 8:23pm | jegnaty

One more law that needs to PASS....

Now the LAW needs to be made. That all bars & resturants have a 3 or 4 drink minimum to all patrons. We can't just quit with cigarettes.....

19 June 30, 2007 - 6:56pm | user6244

Predictions that will come soon to Anchorage

1 After the ban begins to settle in and the initial celebration is over many bars and bingo halls will see a drop in revenue. Some will eventually have to close.

2 Smokers who eventually desire to go out an have a drink and choose to put up with the ban will tend to congregate outside. Local citizens will call in complaints of noise etc.

3 Theft reports from business will increase when some fail to return to pay there tab.

4 Someone will take advantage of the ban that requires people to go outside and a sexual assault will occur as a result of putting people in an unsecure situation.

5 Parents who selfishly and thoughtlessly voted for the ban will complain of seeing more people loitering outside smoking to which they will complain it sets a bad example for there children.

6 People will complain of more litter since it's likely that property owners will not place trash cans out in the streets and some thoughtless smokers will toss them on the ground to which all smokers will end up taking the blame for it.

July 1, 2007 - 4:05pm | bigdschreiner

That is soooo funny.

Yea, I agree. You have got to be about as dumb as a box of rocks to believe that the smoking ban will cause more crime! Remember, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALL BENT ON KILLING THEMSELVES BY SMOKING "SUICIDE" CIGARATTES AREN'T VERY INTELLIGENT TO BEGIN WITH!!!

July 1, 2007 - 12:54pm | chey82

thats hilarious that people

thats hilarious that people think its going to cause "more crime"!! I needed a good laugh!!

July 1, 2007 - 7:21am | bigdschreiner

Predictions that will come soon to Anchorage.

Obviousy, you're about as dumb as the rest of the self centered people that smoke..........

July 1, 2007 - 10:55pm | user6244

Dumb? How about a few examples for you.

New York: A bouncer at a Manhattan nightclub died after he was stabbed in a brawl that police said began when he tried to enforce the city's new ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Dana Blake, 32, died about 11 hours after the late-night fight in an East Village nightclub.

Colorado: Courtney Chinn, 25, of Colorado Springs was shot and killed in an area near the Anchor Lounge where smokers congregate on September 20, 2003. The crime remains unsolved. Calantino said he believes the problem of crime outside of bars where smokers gather will persist.

Ohio: Man Beaten To Death For Not Giving Up Cigarette. Ricardo Leon, 23, died after being beaten outside Partners Pub on Dennison Avenue on Cleveland’s west side.

Colorado: Bar Owner Blames Smoking Ban For Rape. A Pueblo bar owner says the smoking ban that forced his female employee outside is directly responsible for her rape.

NJ: Smokers Raped.Reward posted in rape. cases. Two Camden businesses are offering $25,000 for convictions in recent attacks. A woman working at a shop near Sixth and Cooper Streets was robbed and raped Thursday morning by a man who followed her into the store after she had taken a cigarette break.

Texas: Date Rape Pill Put in Drink, While Going Outside for Cigarette. Maria says she and two other friends stepped outside to smoke a cigarette. She says it was during that time that someone spiked her drink.

Ireland: Three men had jaws broken as they smoked outside pubs in Sligo, Kilkenny and Dublin.

Ireland: Hotel worker assaulted after stopping smoker. Gardaí have begun an investigation into an alleged disturbance at a Limerick hotel, resulting from the smoking ban. A worker at the hotel is believed to have been assaulted when he asked a member of the public to stop smoking at closing time. Gardaí were called but the culprit had fled.

Massachusetts: Melissa Pierce and Angela Aiello, after leaving the bar to smoke, were struck in the heads with a metal pipe. Richard Jervah of Lynn was pushed through a plate glass window. Arthur Brestovitsky was stabbed in the chest, face, and arm.

Maine: Smoking privileges have become a volatile issue at Augusta Mental Health Institute, where violence flared up recently after patients demanded more opportunities to smoke. Four AMHI employees went to a hospital after being injured May 4 in a scuffle that they said was triggered by a forensic patient's demand to smoke more and be left alone while smoking.

Alabama: Smoker Attacked. He was standing in a parking lot, smoking a cigarette when he was attacked.

New Zealand: Woman Assaulted Upholding Ban. Three were charged with disorderly behaviour and a fourth with assaulting police and resisting arrest.

Florida: Smoker Attacked & Raped. The attacker dragged the victim upstairs and threatened to kill her if she called police.

Massachusetts: Smoking Teen Shot. He was shot at least five times while smoking a cigarette in front of 113 Green St.

New Zealand: Abduction And Rape Of Smoking Woman. The incident proved people would be more vulnerable if they had to go outside and smoke, something Prime Minister Helen Clark had not thought of, he said.

Italy: Restaurant owner dies over ban. A pizzeria owner in Turin died of a heart attack after a brawl with three inebriated clients who refused to stub out cigarettes.

California Smoker Gunned Down. A gunman fatally shot a man outside a sports bar in unincorporated Hayward as the man took a cigarette break, authorities said Friday.

CA: A 21-year-old woman was stabbed several times early Saturday outside a Carlsbad home when she went outside to smoke a cigarette, police said.

UK: Nurse stabbed to death at hospital in an outside smoking area.

Oklahoma: A 19 year old woman was, attacked for no reason while smoking a cigarette.

WA: Nightclub bouncers stabbed smoking patrons.

Canada: A 65 year old smoker dies out in the cold.

New Zealand: A 40 year old woman bit and assaulted a woman for smoking a cigarette.

July 1, 2007 - 11:21pm | user6244

In its response to the

In its response to the smoking ban consultation, West-minster pointed to the fact that noise complaints in Edinburgh rose by 1,000% after the ban was introduced in March.

Boulder Park will no longer be Memorial Hospital's ashtray.

Two years after enacting a strict smoking ban, the hospital is scrapping its policy and has asked city permission to build three smoking huts on its 15-acre central campus, east of downtown.

No more will employees, visitors and patients be banished from hospital property to puff in the park.

The change comes after complaints from people living near the park east of downtown.

In addition, the city planning staff has pressured the hospital for months to resolve the issue of smoking in the park.

Finally, on Jan. 20 -- 11 days after a Side Streets article about the neighbors' concerns -- the hospital informed the city of its policy change in a letter seeking permission to build the huts.

we have made a decision to modify the smoking policy at Memorial to address the concerns of our Boulder Park neighbors."

Since the ban was enacted Jan. 1, 2004, neighbors have watched a stream of hospital staff, visitors and pa- tients funnel in and out of the east end of the park, near the tennis courts, sending up a steady plume of smoke.

Smokers being banished to the street is now the irritant. “We get more complaints about smokers outside premises where people are having to walk through smokers to get into premises rather than complaints about smoking inside,” says Mr Cook. “People are also complaining that when they walk down the high street and there are people standing outside shops and offices they feel they are breathing in tobacco smoke in the high street.”

The courts are dealing with a marginal increase in smoking-related litter offences by making licences dependent on premises being clean outside and there being no noise nuisance.

July 1, 2007 - 11:30pm | user6244

The only peer-reviewed

The only peer-reviewed economic
study of the effects of smoking bans not derived from data gathered either
by public health groups or the bar/restaurant industry, but solely from
government employment data, shows the huge detrimental effect smoking
bans have on bars. These economists warn that smoking bans could cut bar
jobs in some states 14 percent.

July 1, 2007 - 11:22pm | user6244

Abstract Many communities

Abstract
Many communities and several states prohibit smoking in bars or restaurants. Using county-level data on employment from across the US, we find that communities where smoking is banned experience reductions in bar employment compared with counties that allow smoking. Smoking bans have a larger detrimental impact on bars in geographic areas with a high prevalence of smokers. The relative effect on restaurant employment is neutral or mildly positive. The positive effects are concentrated in areas with fewer smokers. We also find that bans have a positive effect on restaurant employment in warmer regions of the country, especially during the cooler winter months, and in the summer in colder regions. This suggests the prevalence of outdoor seating might influence the policy's effect.
Submitted: June 5, 2006 · Accepted: February 5, 2007 · Published: February 8, 2007

Recommended Citation
Scott Adams and Chad D. Cotti (2007) "The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis of Changes in Employment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 7 : Iss. 1 (Contributions), Article 12.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12

July 1, 2007 - 11:24pm | user6244

While Mayor Bloomberg tries

While Mayor Bloomberg tries to make the world safe from greenhouse gases, his cigarette ban is going up in smoke.

Scores of trendy clubs and neighborhood pubs across the five boroughs have become smoking speakeasies, where bartenders and bouncers regularly ignore the prohibition launched in 2003.

The Post spotted scofflaw smokers openly puffing away in a dozen bars and clubs in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island during the past few weeks - including celebrity hangouts Bungalow 8, Tenjune, Butter, Marquee, Plumm and Guest House.

The violations The Post witnessed include:

* A bartender and 15 patrons smoking all night inside Doyle's Corner bar in Astoria on the rainy night of May 16. The same scenario was witnessed several weeks earlier.

* A half-dozen hipster patrons at Brooklyn Ale House in Williamsburg smoking openly at the bar and at back tables early Saturday morning.

* A bartender at Boat in Brooklyn saying, "It's 12:30. You can smoke now," as they passed out makeshift ashtrays last Wednesday night.

Earlier, she told a patron to stop smoking, but after her announcement, a number of patrons started up again and the bar was filled with smokers for another hour.

* Dozens of smokers puffing on the dance floor and in the VIP area at the Marquee club on back-to-back nights as security guards looked the other way last week.

* At least 10 people smoking in Chelsea's small, exclusive club Bungalow 8 Thursday night. A security guard walked past the smokers to tell The Post, "You can't take pictures in here."

* Half the patrons of the Annadale Inn in Staten Island lighting up in the wee hours after the bartender closed the window gate to keep out prying eyes several weeks ago.

* Several smokers blowing smoke in the small basement of Lit Lounge on Second Avenue last week.

"They used to" enforce the smoking ban, Brett, a Marquee regular, told The Post last week. "But they barely pay attention now."

Smoking has been prohibited in bars, nightclubs and restaurants since March 2003, after the Bloomberg initiative became law in the fall of 2002.

Establishments are responsible for prohibiting smoking indoors, putting up "no smoking" signs and eliminating all ashtrays. Smokers are not punished.

Fines of up to $2,000 can be issued for every violation, and after three in one year businesses could lose their licenses. From April 2006 to March 2007, nine businesses were permanently shut due to smoking.

The city Department of Health said most businesses have been compliant, although there are violators. "We can't be everywhere all the time," a spokeswoman said.

Agency statistics show 199 establishments hit with 542 violations from April 2006 to March 2007, compared to 162 establishments getting 258 violations in the prior 12-month period. The number of complaints dropped from about 3,000 to 2,000 from last year to this year.

"It's a lose-lose," said an employee of a popular club on West 27th Street. "If we send people outside to smoke, people in the neighborhood got annoyed about the noise. If we let them smoke inside, we get hit with fines."

Allowing smoking indoors is "the lesser of two evils," he said.

Katie Browne, 26, a New Jersey paralegal and frequent clubgoer, said she has noticed a rise in smoking at nightspots over the past year.

July 1, 2007 - 11:27pm | user6244

Some bar owners in Colorado

Some bar owners in Colorado have started encouraging customers to defy the state's smoking ban because they believe it is illegal.

DJ's Bar and Grill in Colorado Springs is one of several bars collecting money from its smoking customers. The money is used to pay the fines the bar will likely receive for allowing people to smoke inside.

Other bar owners support the idea. They said several bars have been forced to close and fire employees because of the smoking ban.

"To my knowledge we have more than 22 bars closed, you've got 400 people unemployed and if it weren't for the smokers, frankly I'd be out of business," said James Vonfeldt, owner of Billy's Inn Bar.

Vonfeldt's bar is on 44th in Denver. He said his business saw a drop in revenue when he tried to stop smokers from lighting up.

Vonfeldt said he makes sure his customers know the law, but he doesn't enforce it.

Bars in Colorado Springs that have been allowing customers to smoke said they plan to fight any fine in court. They believe it will cost the state more to prosecute the fines than the fines are worth.

July 1, 2007 - 11:28pm | user6244

I'M SIPPING A Blue Moon ale

I'M SIPPING A Blue Moon ale in a Philadelphia bar, Janis Joplin is wailing about Bobby McGee and I'm thinking a smoke would go great about now.
I take out one of Baby Cakes' Parliament Lights and fire it up.

I'm smoking in a bar in Philadelphia and nobody says, "Boo!"

There are 20 other people, smokers and nonsmokers, hanging out, enjoying themselves, not doing any harm to anyone (except maybe themselves). The bar is spacious, the NCAA is on the TV screens, beer pennants hang from the ceiling, and through the large windows I see rain falling.

The owner is sitting at the bar chewing nicotine gum. He's a former smoker.

Also a former cop.

"I'm an irresponsible bar-owner," he says with a smile.

Despite the smoking ban - because of it, actually - Philadelphia now has "smoke-easies," a play on "speakeasies" that came to us with the Prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition was enacted in 1920, repealed in 1933 and largely ignored in between. I'm surprised at how many Americans meekly obey smoking bans.

This is about Philadelphians who don't.

For reasons even the dimmest Nicotine Nazi would understand, I'm not naming names or giving locations of the "smoke-easies" I found.

Why do the owners risk fines?

I'll call the proprietor Joe Friday, to honor his former trade. His smoke-easy is within walking distance of one of Philadelphia's universities.

"It's my bar, it's my four walls, cigarettes are legal," he says. "Why can't I allow my customers to smoke?"

Six months before he opened, "a beautiful-looking restaurant, [he names it, I won't], opened a few blocks from here. They never allowed smoking. That is their right," he says, leaving unspoken his belief that it's his right to permit it.

A Health Department inspector dropped in not long ago. No one was smoking, but he asked why Friday had ashtrays on the bar. Friday told him they were heirlooms, something like that.

The law requires bar managers to enforce the ban by telling patrons they can't smoke, but they are cautioned not to take any action other than to call the Health Department to report smokers.

The Health Department has a hotline to report smoking in bars. (If you want the number, look it up yourself, snitch.)

Friday says no patron ever complained to him, "but we did have a complaint to a barmaid."

He tells his employees to say, "We don't condone it," but tells me: "We can't enforce [the ban]. It's not our job."

Just 1.91 MapQuested miles away is another bar, smaller, more Irish, catering more to neighborhood residents. The owner - I'll call him Seamus - is a smoker.

As in the first, NCAA is on the TV, but no jukebox is playing. The dozen customers are singing Broadway show tunes beneath a ceiling glowing with Christmas lights.

It's that kind of a place.

Unlike Friday, he's been written up by Health.

Who ratted him out?

Health inspectors won't ever say, but Seamus says, "It's either a neighbor, a competitor or sometimes a customer, but it's usually your competitors."

Seamus tries "to adhere to the letter of the law" and tells customers, "You cannot smoke in here." If they do, "there's nothing within my legal authority to tell you not to smoke," he says.

Seamus' father was a cop for 35 years, but "I'm not in that business. I'm in the entertainment business," he says.

"I have military men come in here, they're just back from Iraq. If anyone, they have the right to smoke, you know," Seamus says.

He wouldn't stop them, even if he could.

I'm sure there are other smoke-easys around town where owners don't enforce the law, due to philosophy or maybe lethargy.

Some owners will apply for a waiver to the ban available to bars that do 80 percent or more of their gross in alcohol, 20 percent or less in food.

Anti-ban activist Michael J. McFadden estimates that 500 Philly bars might squeeze through the loophole "for the sake of their smoking staff and customers" and also to avoid complaints from neighbors when smokers are forced to stand outside and smoke late at night.

(Local "free-choice" activists coordinate through McFadden's linked Web sites at www.antibrains.com.)

Joe Friday will file for a waiver. "If there's a legal way out, I'll go that way. I don't like being vulnerable," he says. Seamus serves too much food to qualify.

Once these waivers come through, Philly will have Smoking Ban Lite.

Smokers will have some bars, nonsmokers will have many bars and everyone will be happy - except for the Nicotine Nazis who can't stand reasonable compromise.

18 June 30, 2007 - 6:43pm | geefour907

I see tumbleweeds...

The simple fact is that bars will be losing a lot of their longstanding customers because of the ban. To believe non-smokers will come out in droves now that cigarettes are banned tells me you've been smoking something other than Camel Lights.

While the effects of the ban won't be that noticeable in summer, come winter there will be a lot of empty bar stools in Anchorage. I can imagine many local watering holes following the lead of a lot of the tourist schlock shops by closing down for the 'off' season. Our city will be the poorer for it.

July 1, 2007 - 7:24am | bigdschreiner

I see tumbleweeds...

And I see ALOT of idiots like you! The non-smoking ban is NOT about money. You idiots should get that through your shallow heads. It's about smokers no longer being able to hurt innocent people. If you want to be ignorant and hurt yourself then oh well. And, if any of these sleezy bingo halls or nasty bars close then good because we don't need dives like that anyways!!!

July 13, 2007 - 4:38pm | alaskanni

wow

You seem like a really nice guy {sarcasm} Is everything all about you? It would seem to be from reading your posts. So you don't like bars and you don't like smoking. Why should you even care then?

July 2, 2007 - 6:31am | user6244

care

care to name some of the people who have died as a result of SHS?

Please name at least three.

I keep hearing the term harm and SHS deaths as many as 50000 of them and yet when I call Health Dept's they cannot name even one person.

Oh and what's with Anti-tobacco proponents and the name calling and/or disrespectful terms such as "your an idiot, Dumb,etc"?

Not capable of refuting the statements and claims tobacco users make and so attack the writer instead?

I have noticed many times that these terms are used mostly by those who are Anti-tobacco, makes you wonder about who you would rather be in association with.

July 1, 2007 - 12:18am | uapuck16

i was in Colorado

last year when the same thing happened. The smoke free nights I was out were even more crowded than the smoke filled nights. If you've been to Humpy's since they went smoke free, you've probably seen no lack of crowds.

You must not be from here if you think that there will be empty bar stools during the winter in Anchorage.

July 1, 2007 - 7:25am | bigdschreiner

i was in Colorado

Finally, someone with a brain! Amen for what you just said because common since tells you that it's absolutely true!!!

July 1, 2007 - 5:39am | user6244

CO Colorado SpringsEl Tejon

CO Colorado Springs
El Tejon Restaurant
Closed

CO Fort Collins Hooters Restaurant Closed. "Ban killed it"

CO Grand Junction Corral Pool Hall 50% revenue lost

The hordes of people promised by the Cancer society and the Lung Associations have failed to appear.

CO Greeley Red Garter Lounge Tavern 45% revenue lost

CO Greeley Roasty's Steakhouse Restaraunt 60% revenue lost

CO Greeley Union Colony Brewery Brew Pub Closed

CO Louisville Bart's Bar/Restaurant Closed

Bart's had been in operation for nearly 30 years.

CO Pueblo Assorted Tavern Closed

"The smoking ban affected the bars in Pueblo quite drastically. We've had six to 10 bars close since the smoking ban started," said Chuck Chavez, owner of the Sunset Inn.

CO Pueblo Bruno's Beer Joynt Tavern Closed
CO Pueblo Mugsy's Tavern Closed
CO Pueblo Pepper's Tavern Closed
CO Pueblo Silver Saddle Tavern Closed
CO Pueblo Town Tavern Tavern Closed
CO Steamboat The Golden Cue Bar Closed

Over thirty neighborhood pubs and taverns have closed since this ill-conceived and oppressive law was passed which denies' people their right to free choice.

July 1, 2007 - 7:29am | bigdschreiner

CO Colorado SpringsEl Tejon

People like you should all go to some isolated place away from everyone else and smoke all the filthy and disgusting cirgarettes you want. So what if bars close.... We don't need em' anyways. Are the grocery stores, hospitals, police department and all other emergency services going to stay open? Then we'll all be alright....

July 3, 2007 - 6:34pm | user6244

From what I can tell from your writing

You would have fit in well with the likes of Hitler and his Nazi buddies..............Who spoke just as vehemently about Jews and tobacco users as well..

June 30, 2007 - 6:53pm | odregelid

Seriously Doubt It

The bars will have more non-smoking customers, non-smokers will stay longer, smokers will still go, they will just have to smoke outside, you must be from California, to wimpy to go outside in the cold ?

June 30, 2007 - 7:00pm | user6244

Plenty of examples

Here is one of the many out there.

Ireland has lost around 1,000 pubs in the last three years and in Scotland, over 200 pubs and bingo halls have been shutdown. "In England, it has been predicted that 3,500 pubs will be forced to close down not too mention the numerous hookah bars that will be shutdown immediately...

Statewide Smoking Ban Hurts Businesses

June 22, 2007
Dan Guerin

Reports are increasing that the new smoking ban is hurting business at Valley bars and restaurants.

David Wemberley owns the George and Dragon Pub on Central Avenue in Phoenix.
"Everyone said that ‘oh, when the smoking ban kicks in, us non-smokers will be down there, have a good time with you,' but that hasn't happened," said Wemberley. "I'll say we've lost 20-25 percent of our business."

July 1, 2007 - 7:32am | bigdschreiner

Plenty of examples

Where on god's green earth did you get your so - called information??? My wife and her family are from England and Scottland. NO, absolutely NO it is NOT true that smoking has hurt pubs and bars in Ireland. In fact, business has acutally increased. Do you really think that people who smoke are going to now stay home and not go out at all?? Get with the program

July 1, 2007 - 7:32am | bigdschreiner

Plenty of examples

July 2, 2007 - 5:00pm | user6244

My information

came from unbiased reports unlike the ones you have read coming from the very people that advocated smoking bans.
Of course they are not going to report losses or closing..

June 30, 2007 - 8:34pm | daveheriot

Smoking Bans increase business nationwide

Here are four of the dozens of reports that smoking bans INCREASE business, not hurts it:

*Smoking Ban not the Business Killer Some Feared
By Chris Mulick
Olympia Dispatch
June 12th, 2007
Numbers released by the state Department of Revenue Monday suggest the indoor smoking ban approved by 63 percent of voters in 2005 has not been the albatross for some restaurants and drinking establishments some had feared.
Gross business income for bars and taverns increased by 0.3 percent in 2006. While gambling revenues declined, revenues from food and drink sales increased, suggesting that while some smokers had been chased off, new customers had been lured.

*Restaurants, Bars Gain Business Under Smoke Ban
By Stephen Smith,
Boston Globe Staff

Sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of a statewide smoking ban, disproving predictions that the prohibition would inflict serious damage on the hospitality industry, Harvard researchers are scheduled to report today.

*Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says
By ANDREA ELLIOTT
Ny Times
The city's restaurants and bars have prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments since the law took effect a year ago, according to a study to be released by the city today.

*Smoking Bans Increase Sales for Bars, Restaurants
Cincinnati Post
By Juliann Vachon
"Going off of what people say, the ban's effect has been overwhelmingly positive," Bar owner Cunningham said. "It has definitely not decreased business."

June 30, 2007 - 9:10pm | user6244

David W. Kuneman, Director

David W. Kuneman, Director of Research of the Smoker's Club, Inc. originally became interested in the economic effects of smoking bans 4 years ago while reading an review article titled Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. (1) That review article claimed that the "better quality" studies of post-smoking-ban effects always found no loss in the hospitality sector, and also claimed that of the studies finding any losses, "none were funded by a source clearly independent of the tobacco industry."

"Yet, when bans pass, we always hear complaints from the hospitality sector," remarked Kuneman.

In 2004 Kuneman began researching actual government data from the US Department of Commerce and found that bar and restaurant sales almost always suffered losses in states with statewide bans or even a wide proliferation of local bans. (2) "This led me to strongly question the reliability of the antismoking groups studies" he said.

The "review..." article had claimed that all 21 "truly independent" studies (actually all studies funded or supported to one degree or another by antismoking lobby groups) found no negative impact on revenue. The unanimity of that claim raised Kuneman's suspicions: "Considering that natural variability would predict at least some of these studies would report downturns in business for any number of reasons, it is very likely they were cherry-picking data and only publishing what they wanted lawmakers to hear."

On the other hand the studies referenced in the review article which were supported by the tobacco industry or "related" groups (basically any group with ties to the bar/restaurant industry was considered by the review article to be "tobacco industry related" ) usually showed economic loss from bans, but at least some of those studies reported that sometimes bans had no detrimental effect in certain segments of the hospitality industry.

Overall, Kuneman found that the likelihood of economic loss is lower when the establishment is solely for the purpose of eating and higher if the establishment is for socializing. Low, if the establishment does not serve alcohol, and high if most sales are alcoholic beverages ... such as the case for bars and nightclubs. Low, if the jurisdiction had a low smoking rate, and high if it had a high smoking rate. And finally, low if the jurisdiction is located in a mild weather climate, and patio drinking, dining and smoking are allowed, and high in jurisdictions with cold winters or no patio smoking allowed. Employment loss followed these same patterns.

To date, all studies of betting establishments have reported losses when bans take effect.

Kuneman also noticed that many of the studies which claimed no loss, were actually done in jurisdictions where bans were either not enforced or had many exemptions covering such things as limited or no food service, over-21 or after-9-o'clock provisions, or "hardship" waivers. According to Kuneman, "It's important for lawmakers to know that many of these so-called bans were so mild that any reasonable person would not expect much economic loss to be reported. It's not surprising that groups sympathetic to bans selected the jurisdictions they did."

Finally, Kuneman did his own, slightly different "review" of all the economic loss studies available. He compared economic studies conducted by professional economists to economic studies conducted by medical researchers or antismoking lobby groups. He found that most of the economists' studies, including several published in peer-reviewed economics journals (3), found economic loss, which was sometimes quite severe. He also examined the subset of studies funded by the one group with no axe at all to grind except concern for the real economic profits and losses stemming from bans: the hospitality organizations and owners of businesses themselves. Those studies also were nearly unanimous in finding extensive economic impact and loss due to smoking bans.

"The cat's out of the bag." according to Kuneman. "Let's face it and be honest about it. There have been way too many jurisdictions which have enacted bans now for their ill-effects to be ignored. These owners are talking among themselves, and communicating with owners yet to be subject to bans. Everyone now knows bans hurt business and despite what pro-ban lobbyists claim, there are now solid and independent economic studies to back up that conclusion."

References:
(1) http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/ScolloTC.pdf
(2) http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html
(3) Economic impact examples:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dyl258v1?ijkey=Xz91O4MDULuKEtr&keytype=ref
http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12
http://cep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/326
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PDF/Dunham_Marlow2003.pdf

July 1, 2007 - 7:36am | bigdschreiner

David w. Kuneman

First of all, what a complete waste of time taking up all of that space for nothing! Secondly, who cares if a nasty bar closes anyway. That's not the point. Self - centered ignorant people that smoke do NOT have the right to hurt other's with their disguting habit no matter what. So if that means some businesses that we don't need anyways closing the oh well....

July 3, 2007 - 5:25am | user6244

Care to name a few people

Care to name a few people who have died from SHS or are you just claiming that SHS hurt's people because Anti-tobacco tells you it does?

June 30, 2007 - 9:19pm | user6244

economic losses to long to place here

Click on the link below

business losses.

17 June 30, 2007 - 5:37pm | NATEDOG

NON SMOKERS SUCK the fun out

If there were such a huge demand for a place for people to get drunk in a "clean air" enviroment, there would have been smoke free bars for years. Guess what, there isn't any. Generally people who drink, smoke. If the people who work in the bars don't like it, go waitress in a coffee shop or at a gas station. I totally agree to making all public places smoke free, but a bar is privately owned. It should be the owners choice, and like I stated earlier, if there was a profit to be made catering to non smokers it would have allready been done. Thank god there are liquor stores and I can still smoke on my own property (for now).

July 1, 2007 - 7:39am | bigdschreiner

Non smokers suck the fun out

Dude, go out and invest in what we call a "brain" cause you really could use one! Smoke all you want! Now you can silently kill your dumb self without no longer hurting any one else. So, hope you have fun! Smoke one for me!!! Oh, wanna speed the process up? Just buy unfiltered cigarettes instead.......

July 3, 2007 - 5:30am | user6244

Care to sight the study that

Care to sight the study that says one type of smoke is worse than another?
Would you please let us know the names of the people that have died as a result of SHS?
The fact is even though studies indicate that direct smoking may lead to disease still are incapable of definitive proof since no one really knows what causes cancer in the first place.
but at least you can get names of people that have died as a result of smoking of course the majority of them are well over 65 when it happens....

16 June 30, 2007 - 4:45pm | akbywayofkc

Party On!!!

I will definitely go out now that smoking has been banned from the clubs. I love to dance, but had to stop due to the smoke. I hated having to use an inhaler and smelling like cigarette smoke from head to toe. Eee-yukk!

15 June 30, 2007 - 2:30pm | jampony1

Everyones is offended by other action whether good or bad

Smokers have been allowed to smoke for years and intrude on others health whether in or out of bars. I personally haven't thought about my rights as a nonsmoker or the rights of those who smoke. I think about the people who work in these environments that don't smoke and the health issues they may encounter in the future because no one including the owners gave a damn about his/her employees. So the government steps in and gives each and everyone of us a choice to vote the law passes which shows that more nonsmokers exist than smokers. Either way the bottomline it gives those who work in these environment a opportunity at better health where I as someone who pays health insurance don't have my rates go up because a nonsmoker got cancer from second hand smoke. It's not about nonsmokers or smokers it about those who work in that environment

June 30, 2007 - 3:15pm | user6244

SHS and it's effects on Health

have not been proven definitively.
Not a single death to date has ever been caused by it nor written on the second line of a death certificate as attributing to it as well.
As too the workers who may be concerned about the health conditions. Maybe they should look up a different line of work?
I for one understand the dangers/ risk imposed on people who work in the fishing and crabbing industry and will not even entertain the idea of pursuing such a job. Others though through inducement of higher wages are more than willing to take that risk and I say more power to them.
The same is true for the bar worker who understands the risks involved in that line of work but believes the compensation is commensurate with the risk being taken.

14 June 30, 2007 - 2:10pm | odregelid

Business will Increase

I rarely go to clubs because the smoke makes me sick. Cigarettes are very intruding to non-smokers, most cant tolerate it. Smokers can still go out and smoke away, you have a choice. Now everyone can enjoy going out.
I'm certain the businesses will have far more business due to this. This is not just our country, most other countries have had that law in place for some time.

June 30, 2007 - 3:22pm | user6244

Smokers have lost choices

The idea behind bans really have nothing to do with protecting other people but the lie has been used as an excuse to promote prohibition incremently.
By banning smoking in a comfortable atmosphere the hardcore anti's are attempting to remove the association of smoking and comfort.
So the real truth is there is no choice as you call it for the smoker or the private property owner who wishes to provide a controlled and comfortable environment for smokers to spend there money.