Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

- Two studies measured communities with bans vs. those without
- Women, nonsmokers, and people under age 60 seem to benefit most
- Study author: Nationwide public ban could prevent 100,000 to 225,000 heart attacks
- Opponents have argued that bans drive away customers from bars, restaurants

The ban on smoking in public places, such as bars and restaurants, has been one of the greatest public health debates of the early 21st century. Now, two large studies suggest that communities that pass laws to curb secondhand smoke get a big payoff -- a drop in heart attacks.

Overall, American, Canadian, and European cities that have implemented smoking bans had an average of 17 percent fewer heart attacks in the first year, compared with communities who had not taken such measures.

Then, each year after implementing smoking bans (at least for the first three years, the longest period studied), smoke-free communities have an average 26 percent decline in heart attacks, compared with those areas that still allow smokers to light up in public places.

The findings, published independently by two research teams using similar data, are in the medical journals Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association and Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The new studies should grab the attention of cities as well as states -- such as Tennessee and Virginia -- that still permit smoking in (at least certain sections of) bars, casinos, restaurants, and other public places

Opponents have argued that smoking bans drive away customers. Study results have been mixed, with most indicating that the impact on bars and restaurants is neutral or may actually improve business, says Schroeder. However, some businesses, particularly casinos, are still concerned that smoking bans may cause their customers to choose locations that will allow them to light up freely.

"The New Jersey state legislature recently revoked a ban because business was down in casinos -- but business is down everywhere," Schroeder says.

Such arguments suggest that a nationwide ban on smoking in public places and workplaces -- similar to those enacted in countries like France and Italy -- could help level the playing field, says Meyers.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/2 ... index.html

WOW! Using a similar approach, I've got an idea for drastically reducing automobile deaths....

Ah, the Helena study, yes. Montana to go smokeless in all indoor public places on Oct. 1. Lots of chatter on the radio about it yesterday while I was in Billings town.

Wedgebuster wrote:Ah, the Helena study, yes. Montana to go smokeless in all indoor public places on Oct. 1. Lots of chatter on the radio about it yesterday while I was in Billings town.

Maricopa County is already there. It's nice to be able to go to a bar now and not have to become a smoker.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Ah, the Helena study, yes. Montana to go smokeless in all indoor public places on Oct. 1. Lots of chatter on the radio about it yesterday while I was in Billings town.

Maricopa County is already there. It's nice to be able to go to a bar now and not have to become a smoker.

So you like the government to act as a nanny and take care of you when it suits your purposes?


JK, I like smoking bans as well.

I'm not a fan of smoking bans. I would prefer the business owner have the right to choose to have smoke free places, or allow smoking. One caveat, if you allow smoking, no one under 18 is allowed in.

Heard the chemist/doctor/anti-smoking dude on the radio yesterday 'splainin' how that actually SMOKING the ciggy is not nearly as toxic as breathing the smoke that wisps off the stick when it is sitting in the ash tray. Reasoning is that while sitting and not being puffed, the fire is burning at 350-400 degrees which releases many, many times the amount of toxins as the same stick when being inhaled because the cherry burns around 2,000 degrees which incinerates a lot of the by products before it can be inhaled by the smoker. So, if I caught his drift, it is not the second hand smoke that is exhaled by the addict that is dangerous. Also noted was that a smoker only actually smokes 20% of a cancer stick, the rest wisps off into the air between drags.

I have never smoked seriously, do cigars every now and then, tried a few sticks in Jr. High and it made me sick. Same dude was talking about how babies who are born to smoking mothers are nicotine addicts at birth, have low birth weight, and are much fussier than an organic baby.

My mother smoked like a stack every single day from age 14 to death at 80, and admitted to me that she craved vodka while preggy with me.

I get the reason why I love good vodka, but what about the nasty cigs? They still make me wanna puke, and yes, I hate smokey bars too.

Thinking it's pretty amazing how wonderful I turned out despite all these nasty things done to me in the womb, but what if I too was an organic child?? Perfection???

bobbythekidd wrote:I'm not a fan of smoking bans. I would prefer the business owner have the right to choose to have smoke free places, or allow smoking. One caveat, if you allow smoking, no one under 18 is allowed in.

Agree. It's called choice...if a particular bar chooses to allow smoking, then a patron can decide if he/she wants to expose themselves to that environment...kind of like a titty bar...and I don't buy into "it's for the worker's safety" argument either...workers at titty bars are required to be female & dress scantily to remain employed as servers...work rules issue...

Now, if your respective 'burgs allow private clubs to decide this issue, then the issue is moot and I'm off rant....

I would be in favor of a nationwide smoking ban.

Smoking bans save lives, taxpayer money, and cleanliness. There is no constitional right to make someone else sick.

dbackjon wrote:I would be in favor of a nationwide smoking ban.

Smoking bans save lives, taxpayer money, and cleanliness. There is no constitional right to make someone else sick.

No, but there is a Constitutional right to Liberty. It's a pesky thing sometimes.

I'm not a smoker, so I'll admit bias here. One of the things the wife and I like so much about Greenville is the smoking ban - only private clubs can have it in the city limits. Yeah, it infringes on people's rights but this one I'm in favor of because it benefits ME It's nice not having to take a shower before bed after coming home from dinner and drinks with friends IMHO.

Just as non-smokers can choose not to frequent an establishment that allows smoking...can't smokers choose not to frequent an establishment that doesn't allow smoking?

Mindfuck that one.

Wedgebuster wrote:Ah, the Helena study, yes. Montana to go smokeless in all indoor public places on Oct. 1. Lots of chatter on the radio about it yesterday while I was in Billings town.

It is going to be real interesting this winter watching the diehards smoke in -20 weather.

Wedgebuster wrote:Ah, the Helena study, yes. Montana to go smokeless in all indoor public places on Oct. 1. Lots of chatter on the radio about it yesterday while I was in Billings town.

It is going to be real interesting this winter watching the diehards smoke in -20 weather.

dbackjon wrote:I would be in favor of a nationwide smoking ban.

Smoking bans save lives, taxpayer money, and cleanliness. There is no constitional right to make someone else sick.

So does banning automobiles....and gay pride parades for that matter....you can justify banning alot of things under the guise of saving lives & taxpayer money....

Appaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:I would be in favor of a nationwide smoking ban.

Smoking bans save lives, taxpayer money, and cleanliness. There is no constitional right to make someone else sick.

So does banning automobiles....and gay pride parades for that matter....you can justify banning alot of things under the guise of saving lives & taxpayer money....

Appa, you have a point when talking about people being able to choose to go in or stay out but I'm not sure a person's "right" to smoke is that simple. My kids have ashma and second hand smoke is a physical assault on them. Should I have to avoid taking my kids to a restaurant because some azzhole has a right to pollute the air inside? In a public place, a person has just as much of a right to pollute the air that someone else is breathing as I have the right to punch them in the face.

there is no expressed right to be able to smoke in public for one thing...

the public health benefits on this one are getting too hard to ignore. the real question isn't "why shouldn't business owners get to choose?" it's "let's make the no smoking decision easier for the business owners to explain away"

quite frankly these bans are put in place by local governments so they can 1. do the right thing, 2. act as the "bad guy" with the smokers so the business owner can say "sorry, but it's the law"... gives them cover.

UNI88 wrote:Appa, you have a point when talking about people being able to choose to go in or stay out but I'm not sure a person's "right" to smoke is that simple. My kids have ashma and second hand smoke is a physical assault on them. Should I have to avoid taking my kids to a restaurant because some azzhole has a right to pollute the air inside? In a public place, a person has just as much of a right to pollute the air that someone else is breathing as I have the right to punch them in the face.

Ok, but we are discussing private property not public.

bobbythekidd wrote:

UNI88 wrote:Appa, you have a point when talking about people being able to choose to go in or stay out but I'm not sure a person's "right" to smoke is that simple. My kids have ashma and second hand smoke is a physical assault on them. Should I have to avoid taking my kids to a restaurant because some azzhole has a right to pollute the air inside? In a public place, a person has just as much of a right to pollute the air that someone else is breathing as I have the right to punch them in the face.

Ok, but we are discussing private property not public.

Exactly. No argument when were talking about public (government maintained) property.....why do you & your child's rights to restaurant service on privately maintained venue supercede a smoker's rights?

Or better yet, why do you & your child's "right" to service at restaurant on private property supercede the owner's wish to allow and serve Smoker's?

bobbythekidd wrote:

UNI88 wrote:Appa, you have a point when talking about people being able to choose to go in or stay out but I'm not sure a person's "right" to smoke is that simple. My kids have ashma and second hand smoke is a physical assault on them. Should I have to avoid taking my kids to a restaurant because some azzhole has a right to pollute the air inside? In a public place, a person has just as much of a right to pollute the air that someone else is breathing as I have the right to punch them in the face.

Ok, but we are discussing private property not public.

yeah, but it's being pursued as "workplace safety"... which it is in spades for those in the hospitality trades...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:
Ok, but we are discussing private property not public.

yeah, but it's being pursued as "workplace safety"... which it is in spades for those in the hospitality trades...

I didn't realize we still had slavery. Who are the slave masters that make people work at a smoking establishment?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:
Ok, but we are discussing private property not public.

yeah, but it's being pursued as "workplace safety"... which it is in spades for those in the hospitality trades...

which is BS.....they choose to work there....don't have a right to work in a bar free of smoke....

bobbythekidd wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
yeah, but it's being pursued as "workplace safety"... which it is in spades for those in the hospitality trades...

I didn't realize we still had slavery. Who are the slave masters that make people work at a smoking establishment?

bingo...

Appaholic wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:
I didn't realize we still had slavery. Who are the slave masters that make people work at a smoking establishment?

bingo...

by that logic - there should be no OSHA regulations on anything anywhere... since it's all private property... no need to protect people trying to make a living... that's absurd.

you work where you can find work, and for an entire group of people in this country - the hospitality trades are pretty much all that is open... this childish notion of "just work somewhere else" implies that jobs are a dime a dozen and you can just find a job on demand anywhere... that's insane. it's like the notion of "well then you should move" - a naive sentiment that is totally divorced from reality.

fact is, the hotel and restaurant trade is just another employer - just like a construction site, just like an office, just like a retail store... and occupational safety is just as important there as it is in a mineshaft.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
bingo...

by that logic - there should be no OSHA regulations on anything anywhere... since it's all private property... no need to protect people trying to make a living... that's absurd.

you work where you can find work, and for an entire group of people in this country - the hospitality trades are pretty much all that is open... this childish notion of "just work somewhere else" implies that jobs are a dime a dozen and you can just find a job on demand anywhere... that's insane. it's like the notion of "well then you should move" - a naive sentiment that is totally divorced from reality.

fact is, the hotel and restaurant trade is just another employer - just like a construction site, just like an office, just like a retail store... and occupational safety is just as important there as it is in a mineshaft.

& by your logic, there shouldn't ever be a need to lift more than 50lbs since that is a requirement for some jobs....or we should never re-surface unless we remove all traffic from all other lanes....that is absurd....some job environments contain inherent dangers...& speaking of naive, what are people thinking who pursue this work...people don't like to smoke when they drink? I'm not speaking of restaurant workers, so don't make the sweeping generalization...I'm speaking merely of bars & nightclubs...

IT'S FUCKING FUNNY AS HELL TO SEE THE SAME GROUP HERE THAT ARE FOR FAGS BE AGAINST FAGS IN THIS INSTANCE!!!