quittin' smoking

[gwen]

On 3/14/06, Chris Rapier <rapier1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> You didn't follow the footnote did you?

Actually, yes I did.  I skimmed through an inordinate amount of mail
on this topic in the brief time I had between working and working
yesterday... and guess what, I just did the same thing!  (I don't get
online on Tuesday evenings due to long rehearsels.)

Anyway, I did ask my brother for the sources and he had a lot to say. 
I'm including exerpts at the end of this message.  Both sides of this
issue will be interested in what he had to say.

As for the "But!  But!  The comfort level effect is the same!"
arguments I've been seeing (remember, I've been skimming, so I'm just
not going to quote specifics or remember who said what here).... it's
not.  It's really really not.  No one has addressed the very salient
point that I have stated:  extreme asthmatics can *die* from exposure
to heavy amounts of smoke, like is seen in clubs and bars.  That's no
longer a comfort level issue.

Anyway, without using any biased data about whether second-hand smoke
causes problems with the healthy non-smoking population as a way to
legally maneuver into a smoking ban, I'll just point out that there is
an inferred disability prejudice against extreme asthmatics working at
smoking bars.  This can be used to show discrimination against people
with disabilities, and can be used to legally argue for a smoking ban.
 I mean, if you want to try for that tactic.

As for, "But small bars around will still have smoking allowed," sure.
 Yes, there will.  Hell, I went to a smoking bar in Sunnyvale when I
first was out in California.  But that will be a few of the bars, not
the vast majority of them... which is the case we have now.

--
gwen.
gamergothgeek

Exerpts from 2 emails from my brother, who is Smarter Than All Y'all <tm>:

------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I couldn't find my original article, but a quick google of "impact
of smoking ban on local economy" turned up some very interesting results.
Including an official CDC report on the impact on El Paso Texas, done one
year after the ban took effect, with references to other states and
municipalities that enacted bans:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

The quick summary from the report:
"No decline in total restaurant or bar revenues occurred in El Paso,
Texas, after the city's smoking ban was implemented on January 2, 2002.
These findings are consistent with the results of studies in other
municipalities that determined smoke-free indoor air ordinances had no
effect on restaurant revenues (2,5--8). Despite claims that these laws
especially might reduce alcoholic beverage revenues (2), the
mixed-beverage revenue analyses indicate that sales of alcoholic beverages
were not affected by the El Paso smoking ban."

This report, which details the methodology used, as well as cites the
source of all its data, would seem to be more authoritative than any news
article or simple smoker's group's assertions, in any case.
------------------------------------------------------------
In all honesty, looking over various other links I've now found, I find
the data is very muddled. One can find studies that support both sides of
the argument. Generally speaking, the studies for each side tend to
support the side of whoever commissioned the study... in every case, it
seems like the methodology used could be considered suspect.
------------------------------------------------------------