A month ago, Federal Reserve economist Dr. Michael Pakko published research showing that smoking bans do indeed hurt bars and some restaurants. Dr. Pakko urges lawmakers not to adopt “a Pollyannaish outlook in which communities can achieve public health benefits with no economic consequences.” http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2008/a/pages/smoking-ban.html

Dr. Pakko warns that bars and casinos are hardest hit by statewide smoking bans. Dr. Pakko cites 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, which shows the huge detrimental effect smoking bans have on bars. Smoking bans could cut bar jobs in some states 14 percent! http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12/

freedom isnt free. Dont take away my god given right to smoke and blow it in your kids’ face.

No. 2 cause of cancer: bicycling.

Mr Armstrong had testicular cancer, shouldn’t he be fighting to ban improper bicycle seats or steroid use?

2:17— We must sacrifice virgins to the market! All bow to the almighty Gods of Economics!

There’s things more important in life than market efficiency… it’s easier to suffer through dead weight loss than throat or lung cancer.

I really wish that this Bill Hannegan (bar owner from St Louis) would quit posting his propaganda all over the internet. There are plenty of studies that show no loss of business as a result of a smoking ban. And do you see states repealing bans…no. Never mind the fact that secondhand smoke is now accepted as being harmful by even the tobacco companies. http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Secondhand_smoke.asp

The drama queen and posers have received far too much mileage from this EBS nonsense, it is really getting embarrassing to watch.

The most likely and universal effect of smoking is dependency; most believe it is unavoidable if you smoke. If any of this fear of second hand smoke is at all credible in order to draw credible parallels to active smoking occurrence rates need to be measured statistically.

Nicotine dependency which is virtually universal among smokers is the greatest incidental risk regardless of the other individual toxic effects feared. Dependency therefore would have to occur much more often than any other effect. If non smokers are not known to be addicted to the smoke, how could they possibly suffer any of the lesser statistically associated effects?

It’s just not credible.

This is a point the so called “experts” should have realized long ago. The fact in all these years they have chosen to ignore it, failing to even develop a theory to explain it, should say a lot in respect to the level of expertise versus politics involved here.

Second Hand Smoke is an unoriginal political creation, nothing more.

Adolph Hitler was the first to coin the term “second hand smoke”. I kid you not.

Bill Hannegan is a fool. He is kind enough to sign his nonsense, but if you do a google search on his name all you get is crazy “get off my lawn” propaganda about how smoke is actually good for you and even if it isn’t the government has no right to protect it’s people. He has inserted himself into every small town paper’s debate on smoking bans, and has not even bothered to change his posts. Seriously, take some of that post above and toss it into google. He just copies and pastes things. He’s a troll, and what is worse he is a troll who makes it difficult to have a level-headed debate on a local level.

The comment “second hand smoke is accepted as being harmful by the cigarette companies” needs a little more consideration.

Tobacco Company profits are expanding by the day its really not surprising they would sing along. While the rest of us fight for their right to say, in reference to responsibility;

We do ourselves more harm than they ever could.

We are being protected from ourselves while industry is given a free pass to do as they please.

For your own good, sounds great, but only if you are determined to be a slave to an industrial socialist government.

Hitler had the same idea; DR. Robert Proctor et al;

People should be made aware of the history of the “public health” movement.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/robert+n.+proctor

“Jena by this time was a center of antitobacco activism — mainly through the labors of Karl Astel, director of the new institute [Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research] and president, since the summer of 1939, of the University of Jena. Astel was head of the Thuringia’s office of Racial Affairs and a notorious antisemite and racial hygienist (he had joined the Nazi party and the SS in July of 1930) … Astel was also a militant antismoker and teetolater who once characterized opposition to tobacco as a ‘national socialist duty.’ On May 1, 1941, he banned smoking in all buildings and classrooms of the University of Jena, and the following spring, as head of Thuringia’s Public Health Office, he announced a smoking ban in all regional schools and health offices. Tobacco in his view had to be fought ‘cigar by cigar, cigarette by cigarette, and pack by pack’ — hence his notoriety for snatching cigarettes from the mouth of students who dared to violate his Jena University tobacco ban.”

CTVs pride and joy.

The smoking ban is not meant to protect the smoker from himself. It’s meant to protect the non-smoker from being exposed to secondhand smoke, and then getting some of the same illnesses that smokers do.

And comparing today’s public health experts to Hitler and Nazis just because you disagree with their views on public smoking isn’t particulary reasonable.

Yes, Bill Hannagan posts his name. Too bad “anonymous” doesn’t. Bill owns a bar in St. Louis? Gee. Do you THINK MAYBE he knows about the loss of business? I DO. My husband and I own a bar and the ban is killing us. What floors me is how indignant people who DON’T own a business impacted by bans blow off the enconomic damage it does to us. What’s a few thousand businesses closing? Who cares? Well, we’re not buildings, we’re people who own these businesses. We’re husband and wife teams who’ve sunk everything we own into them. And guess what? Do you think we can sell them for what they WERE worth? You people kill me. Oh..and Phillip Morris sells Nicotine Replacement Therapy so they’re just fine with bans or no bans…they’ve got it covered either way.

Bill Hannegan’s critic notes his effort to fight the antismoking lobby in small towns all over the country, wherever it pops up. I do the same. Unfortunately for those of us who fight the misinformation from the other side we have no multimillion dollar corporations with thousands of local staffers to lobby town councils and city halls. We have no funding to fly in “experts” to testify at $5,000 a day or sponsor massive media events.

Our message is important: that smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. Thanks to the power of the internet we have the wherewithal to be able to get that message out and provide the information to back it up without needing a budget, staff, or pay.

The poster who ripped into Mr. Hannegan will likely also seek to rip into me, although the tactic will be a bit different. I will probably be faulted because I’ve sought to fight the antismoking lobby by writing a book about the tricks and techniques it uses to drive its agenda. If I fail to mention the book I can be accused of hiding a competing interest. If, on the other hand, I do mention the book, I can be accused of self promotion.

Since my primary drive is to get accurate and truthful information out to the wider public about the lies at the base of smoking ban campaigns I will of course, as always, clearly sign my name and reveal my potential “competing interest”. Those interested in what I have to say about smoking bans can read quite extensively through both the links provided from my website or simply by Googling me. Those who’d like to see my arguments in a more coherent format are welcome of course to get the book.

Hmmm…. maybe Bill and I and others like us are missing the boat on this… perhaps we should seek some of the money extracted from smokers through tobacco taxes to carry our case to the public. Unfortunately something tells me that our approach would not be approved of for such grants though: our message is not of the “approved” variety for funding.

Unfortunately for our adversaries though, idealism can survive without funding.

Michael J. McFadden Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” www.antibrains.com/author.html

This link will show you the truth about the dangers of smoking and SHS http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html

There are two reason for smoking bans and neither of them are about health.

Quarantine/isolate the smoker. De-normalize smoking. Unfortunately, the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire

There is no ‘safe’ level of second-hand smoke!!

What do you think if these same people start saying,’there is no ‘safe’ level of alcohol

Since the public smoking bans in France and Italy one year ago, there has been a 15% reduction in heart attack admission to hospitals in France and 11% in Italy. Assuming that smokers there still smoke (outside, now), then the reduction is due to the elimination of second hand smoking. It amzaes me that people would even think of wanting to make a living from a business like a smoking bar or tavern which can kill or harm their workers.

Smoking is among the smallest of liberties. This makes it among the most important to defend. After-all it’s a legal substance that’s supposed to only be sold to adults and the taxes generated from the sales are used as a funding source for everything from generating more propaganda against the sale of cigarettes to the much touted and inevitable expansion of the SCHIP program. That’s right, smokers will inevitably be paying for even more of your kids “free” healthscare than they already do. That means if your successful in your campaign of “denormalization”, ostracization, fear mongering, discrimination and hate and actually drive the tobacco industry out of business (not likely) your kid could die, because you don’t like the smell of tobacco smoke, or because you don’t want to have to make a choice and visit a smokefree venue that actually wants your non-smoking patronage. If smokers don’t smoke, you will eventually have to pick up the tab for your own “free” healthscare. Stop deluding yourself.

Actively campaigning to eliminate a funding source while projecting future budgets on that declining revenue stream is more than just plain stupid, and any state government that does so is guilty of criminal malfeasance.

As far as Mr. Bicycles comment; “But when you walk into a restaurant or walk into a bar or you walk into somebody’s workplace and you’re smoking a cigarette, you have violated somebody else’s basic rights,”

He’s right, but that violation is against the property/business owner and no one else. If you don’t smoke, don’t go there, it really is that easy, and this includes the employees as well. If smoking is allowed, don’t apply. Make a wise choice for yourself and patronize, or apply for employment in the 80% of establishments that are supposed to have gone smokefree on their own. There are likely lots of other sheep there and you’ll be in good company.

Leave the free-thinking, liberty loving adults alone. We don’t need your special brand of help.

Bill Brown Restaurant owner - Ohio

Comparing today’s public health experts to Hitler and Nazis just because you disagree with their views on public smoking isn’t particulary reasonable but it hits the nail right on the head. I’ve researched this SHS topic for over 10 years and what you hear from the Pro- Smokers is true. No exaggerations, just the truth.

Michael Pakko has no publications on the subject in peer-reviewed journals. None.

Pakko’s conclusions are not supported by the research that does get published in peer-reviewed journals. The record shows, in study after study, city after city, that going smokefree does not hurt business, including bar business. A summary of the now-extensive research on the subject is here:

http://no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=54

The data proves that the only business that suffers when workplaces go smokefree is the cigarette business.

If tobacco industry profits should take precedence over public health, then we should definitely have smoke-filled workplaces including bars.

Otherwise, the time has come to say enough. Smoke-free works. It’s been proven in community after community. Business goes on. Life goes on. And tobacco disease and death, starts to go down.

Economic studies funded by antismoking public health groups tend to find no business loss from smoking bans.

Economic studies conducted by the hospitality industry or independent professional economists such as Dr. Pakko tend to find economic harm due to smoking bans.

Jon Krueger wrote, “Business goes on. Life goes on. And tobacco disease and death, starts to go down.”

Business goes on… just not as well. California has lost on the order of 100 billion dollars over the past 15 years due to its antismoking laws. That number sounds truly incredible, but it’s backed by government figures. See the Kuneman/McFadden study at:

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html

Criticisms of the content/facts/analysis in the study are quite welcome.

As for “tobacco disease and death” going down… why don’t you take a look at California’s health care costs since it started ringing in its widespread bans back in 1995. Notice how well its economy is doing? How sound its health care system is? How far its health care costs have dropped?

No? Big surprise.

Michael J. McFadden Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/130.html

sorry if i mistake this field

If you cannot choose just one piece for our exquisite line of fine jewelry, our boxed sets are a great alternative. Choose from pearl and stone earring sets, diamond necklace, ring and earring sets, plus much more.

this is very good tutorial , cell phone

best medical discount