Ireland's Smoking Ban

[Boris Godunov]

debeest: I respect your experience and authority, but I am still quite skeptical of the EPA's analysis, which has formed the foundation for America's anti-smoking bans. I believe the risks associates with second-hand smoke exposure are relatively minor, and when it comes to a choice between that and setting the precedent of a ban that infringes on the rights of the private business owners, I am doubly skeptical. One of the salient points made above is thus:

Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.

They seem to be taking a special exception for ETS above other agents. I would think they are being quite inconsistent, and it looks like the reason behind it is a general anti-smoking agenda.

Regarding the ETS vs SHS point, I took him to mean they were commonsly used interchangeably at by many studies. Since they are of little importance, I don't see that as a major mark on his credibility.

That SHS/ETA are irritants and not healthy for you is most likely true, certainly. But the question concerning these laws is, are they risky enough to warrant these rather drastic infringements on people's rights to run the establishment they wish to run? So far as I see, no.

This is not a personal thing, again--I hate smoking, and I love going to bars and not being surrounded by the stuff. But personal tastes shouldn't dictate private business policy.

[Gibsie]

They said on South Park that it's never been proved that second-hand smoke is dangerous. CASE CLOSED.

[Theben]

Just goes to show that even drunk off their azzes the Irish can make excellent decisions.

[rah]

Originally posted by debeest
I take the California studies as clear evidence that a broad, comprehensive ban on smoking in bars and restaurants would not reduce profits. Do we really need to worry about whether localized bans would drive local profits down? Just promulgate broad, comprehensive bans and profits will not suffer.

NOT reducing profits. A totally different thing from reduced growth, which these studies did not look at. (at least the ones I checked.)

I still believe the business owner should be allowed to make his own decision in these manners.

[debeest]

RAH, don't be dense. I'm not trying to be tricky here. The studies all show that banning smoking in bars and restaurants has either no effect or a small positive effect on profits. Profits are unaffected. Growth is unaffected. Patronage is unaffected. Smoking bans do not cost bars and restaurants any money.

It would make sense to allow the owners to make their own decisions IF, but only IF, ETS did not impose serious health effects on employees (and patrons too). But ETS causes cancer and heart disease, so a ban falls into the same category as requiring hand-washing in restaurants so employees don't spread hepatitis.

[debeest]

Boris, look more carefully at the risk assessment numbers I already posted. The ETS cancer risk is far greater than EPA allows for anything else, and right at the edge of requiring OSHA regulation. Those are not "relatively minor" risks. If it was chromium in drinking water, people would have a hissy fit about it. And remember, those are just the cancer risks. The heart disease mortality risks are actually much greater than the cancer risks.

Hitt's point about relative risks is often quoted on many issues, but is without large merit. Epidemiologists trying to determine whether or not an agent causes a disease follow a set of principles enunciated famously by Sir Austin Bradford-Hill in the 1960s. Relative risk (referred to in Bradford-Hill's principles as "magnitude of risk") is just one of a number of criteria, including consistency of findings, biological plausibility, and so on. The data on ETS conclusively qualify, even though the RR is low. Hitt focuses on the low RR because everything else points to causal risk. There was no "exception" for ETS. By looking at all the evidence, not just RR, EPA followed the accepted principles of epidemiology.

If there's an anti-smoking agenda, it's because smoking is the leading cause of death in the developed world.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
There is, however, no conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke is enough of a health risk to warrant these measures that are blatantly against the right of a business owner to run his establishment as he sees fit. The most comprehensive study conducted on the issue found, to the surprise of those running it, that nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke for a great periods of time had no significant increased propensity over other nonsmokers to develop health problems.

This WHO link says otherwise.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So you are saying that non-smokers are second class citizens?

As opposed to smokers being second-class citizens? Non-smokers can have their own non-smoking restaurants and bars. There shouldn't be a blanket ban. If the owner wants to allow smoking... let him.

You miss the point entirely. You are saying that smoker's purported freedom to smoke overrides the health concerns of non-smokers, which is a lot more fundamental to the alleged freedom, if it exists at all.

[Ming]

Originally posted by debeest
RAH, don't be dense. I'm not trying to be tricky here. The studies all show that banning smoking in bars and restaurants has either no effect or a small positive effect on profits. Profits are unaffected. Growth is unaffected. Patronage is unaffected. Smoking bans do not cost bars and restaurants any money.

First... ALL the studies you are refering to are from California... not your typical state by a long shot
Talking to bar owners here, where a ban also could happen, they are livid and think they will lose money. Restaurant owners are also fighting against the ban.
If they were "convinced" of all the studies, you would think they would be fighting for it

It would make sense to allow the owners to make their own decisions IF, but only IF, ETS did not impose serious health effects on employees (and patrons too). But ETS causes cancer and heart disease

We are talking about places where the STATE licenses them to sell booze... A far more serious health problem them second hand smoke... You can say a person doesn't have to drink... but they also don't have to work or enter a place that allows smoking... It's a CHOICE... not something dictated by the state.

Smoke free restaurants and bars here make tons of money... people have a choice on the type of establishment they wish to work in and go to.

It's really interesting that the state will make tons of money selling liscenes to establishments to serve booze, a leading cause of death on our highways and long term health problems, but now say that second hand smoke is such a great risk that it can't be allowed.
And that owners of private establishments can't make their own choice in how to run their businesses...
What crap...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by rah
I'm concerned about those California studies. If you live in LA, your options are limited. You're not going to leave the state to eat dinner out frequently. I'd be more interested in those where there is a city ban (a smaller city) where the option to drive 5 miles to get outside of the ban radius is possible. That would be a truer test of whether it has an impact.
Or even in a town near the border of California where it's easy to go into Nevada to avoid the ban.

By your command...

Posted on Mon, Mar. 29, 2004


New York City's Smoking Ban Helps Business, Study Says

By Lisa L. Colangelo, Daily News, New York Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News


Mar. 29 - The city ban on smoking in restaurants and bars is good for the lungs -- and for business, according to a Health Department report released yesterday.

A year after the controversial law went into effect, business in restaurants and bars is up 8.7 percent, according to the report.

The study -- done by the same department that advocated the ban in the first place -- compared tax receipts, employment and business openings and closings in 2002 and 2003.

"The bottom line is that New York City a year later is a healthier place to work, eat and drink," said Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden. "And 150,000 people don't have to go into work every day and be smoked on by other people."

Of the 22,003 establishments inspected from April 2003 to February 2004, 97 percent were deemed "smoke-free." Inspectors saw no ashtrays at these locations, no one was spotted smoking and cigarette warning signs were hung properly.

The state Liquor Authority awarded 1,416 new licenses in 2003 in New York City, compared to 1,361 in 2002, according to the report.

Mayor Bloomberg risked heavy political fallout when he pressed the ban, which continues to anger smokers who resent being sent to the sidewalk for a cigarette.

Despite the rosy numbers, many bar and club owners complain business has suffered.

Using 2002 -- when the economy plummeted after the 9/11 terror attacks -- as a baseline for comparison is unfair, bar owners say.

"Why don't they just compare job stats to 1929 -- it's about as relevant," said David Rabin of the New York Nightlife Association, co-owner of Lotus. "Two thousand two was probably the worst year to compare to in 20 years. And they simply refuse to separate out bars, clubs and taverns [from restaurants]. They know numbers are bad there."

Rabin said bar and club employees have taken second jobs to make up for lost tip income.

"Is that an increase in jobs?" he quipped.

Frieden said opponents falsely predicted doom and gloom when they warned employment and revenue numbers would drop 30 percent to 50 percent.

"They were wrong," Frieden said. "That doesn't mean there aren't businesses that are hurting for a whole variety of reasons. Around the country, stand-alone bars are not doing well."

-----

To see more of the Daily News, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.NYDailyNews.com

© 2004, Daily News, New York. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

[Solly]

I've seen it said that maybe this will lead to a reduction in the number of people smoking - a lot of people only smoke because they are in a pub anyway. Ban that, and you stop those people smoking. Or however the argument goes.... Yet, wouldn't it also be the case then, that if smoking is not allowed in pubs/bars, people who were previously discouraged from going out for a drink due to the smokiness of the places would now go out. You might reduce smoking but increase (problem) drinking. Just a thought.

Ming

"The bar owners seem to think that people won't stay as long or drink as much if they can't smoke..."

Interesting - most of the interviews I've seen of the Irish has been mixed. I know many people who have walked into a bar only to leave after a few seconds because the air is thick and fog-like. Those people will stay longer.

As regards tobacco advertising, I don't know the full story. But I do know that those facts are relevant.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Ming
We are talking about places where the STATE licenses them to sell booze... A far more serious health problem them second hand smoke... You can say a person doesn't have to drink... but they also don't have to work or enter a place that allows smoking... It's a CHOICE... not something dictated by the state.

The choice between drinking and not drinking is not equivalent to the choice between smoking and avoiding places that allow smoking. You can still got to bars and not get drunk should you so choose. With smoking though, you either go to bars and put up with second-hand smoking or avoid bars totally and have your social life only taking place on internet forums.

And regarding "choosing" to work at a bar - if you have a job in a bar it is highly unlikely that you are in a position to pick and choose what type of job you want.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ming
It's really interesting that the state will make tons of money selling liscenes to establishments to serve booze, a leading cause of death on our highways and long term health problems, but now say that second hand smoke is such a great risk that it can't be allowed.

Last I checked, the annual tobacco related death figure is 10 times that of traffic accidents. Both for the United States.

[Gibsie]

Profits will go up in bars, because the cigarette machines, which send most of their profits to the government will be booted out, leaving the punters with more money in their pockets to spend on beer, which send more profit to the barman.

At least in England.

[rah]

The Mad Monk,
New York also has somewhat of a captive audience. My quote even said SMALLER CITIES, which I don't consider NEW YORK. Try again.