Home / SmokingBan
Showing posts with label SmokingBan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SmokingBan. Show all posts
"Kasich Will Sign 'Guns In Bars' Bill"

"Kasich Will Sign 'Guns In Bars' Bill"

There is an interesting poll here that asks people "Which do you think should be allowed in bars?" and the choices are "smoking," "guns," "both," and "neither." The majority of people in this unscientific poll support allowing either guns or smoking in bars.

Ohio lawmakers passed a proposal which would allow people with concealed-carry permits to take firearms into bars and facilities where alcohol is served, as long as they don't drink.
The House and the Senate both approved the measure Wednesday which will send it to the governor.
Gov. John Kasich told ONN's Jim Heath that he would sign the bill. . . .
Move to ban e-cigarettes raises question

Move to ban e-cigarettes raises question

So e-cigarettes have no second hand smoke but they still get banned? The claim is that letting people smoke non-smoke emitting e-cigarettes will lead to people smoking real cigarettes makes little sense because the enforcement is easy. E-cigarettes may even make it easier to ban real cigarettes because there is a substitute. Now this from Seattle.

Five years after Washington residents voted to ban smoking cigarettes, cigars and pipes in public places, King County wants to add one more thing to the list: Electronic cigarettes.

The 2006 state law banned smoking in bars and restaurants on the basis that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. King County's rationale for adding e-cigarettes, also known as battery-powered nicotine-delivery devices, to the list of forbidden acts is a little different.

The fake cigs, from which users inhale vaporized nicotine, don't emit smoke. Rather, they produce a less-smelly, combustion-free mist.

But public health officials say they're so similar to the real thing that they make tobacco enforcement difficult and often prompt smokers to think it's OK to light up in public. And that leads to second-hand smoke, health officials reason.

"The idea is that even though they're not exactly identical to cigarettes, people see folks using e-cigarettes, and they think somebody else is smoking," said Bud Nicola, a King County Board of Health member and affiliate professor with the University of Washington School of Public Health. "It makes it very difficult for inspectors." . . .
Government comes to the rescue, well, sort of

Government comes to the rescue, well, sort of

Anti-smoking laws aren't an invasion of property or privacy? The Cincinnati Reds win the National League Central division and then, gasp, the owner gives out cigars to his players and some of them start puffing away.

Reds celebration cigars spark health probe
(AFP) – 2 days ago
CINCINNATI, Ohio — City health officials will inspect the home ballpark and locker room of the Cincinnati Reds after complaints that players violated an indoor smoking ban by puffing on cigars in a celebration.
Television scenes of the Reds in the locker room showed the smokers after their National League Central division title-clinching 3-2 home victory Tuesday over Houston and five complaints were made to a state telephone hotline.
State law requires the complaints over a violation of Ohio's smoking ban be followed up with an investigation within 30 days, although Cincinnati Health Department spokesman Rocky Merz said any action from the probe is unlikely.
The Reds reached the Major League Baseball playoffs for the first time since 1995 and will begin their post-season title quest next week. . . .

New Year New Laws




Regarding texting:

“It’s the hottest safety issue in the states right now by far,” said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety agencies. . . .
Healthy Cigarettes?

Healthy Cigarettes?



Nicotine, like caffeine, is actually fairly beneficial in many circumstances. Nicotine simultaneously stimulates and calms people. It is one reason why soldiers like to smoke when they are out on patrol -- staying alert is at a premium, but they also don't want to drink a lot of caffeine because it can cause your hands to shake slightly.
Banning Flavored Cigarettes

Banning Flavored Cigarettes

The Obama administration is moving quickly to limit people's ability to make choices.

Federal health officials Tuesday banned the sale of flavored cigarettes and hinted that they may soon take action against the far-larger market of flavored little cigars and cigarillos, the first major crackdown on cigarettes since the Food and Drug Administration was given authority to regulate tobacco.

The ban is intended to end the sale of tobacco products with chocolate, vanilla, clove and other flavorings that lure children and teenagers into smoking. Menthol products are as yet unaffected.

The ban comes three months after President Obama signed legislation giving the F.D.A. the authority for the first time to regulate tobacco products. . . . .


Why ban every other flavored cigarette but the ones with menthol? With all the health arguments put out for the ban, why not menthol? Could it be for the same reason that the rest of the bill is seen as favoring Philip Morris?

Tobacco companies can no longer sell candy-, spice-, or fruit-flavored cigarettes in the United States, regulators said, acting to enforce a ban signed into law in June by President Obama. . . .

Philip Morris USA, the maker of the top-selling Marlboro brand, sells no cigarettes covered by the ban, said David Sylvia, an Altria spokesman. Nor does third-biggest Lorillard Inc., said Hannah Sloane, a company spokeswoman.

North Carolina makers Reynolds, of Winston Salem, and Lorillard, of Greensboro, opposed FDA regulation, saying restrictions would perpetuate Philip Morris' dominance and discourage novel products that may be less harmful.
"Smoking Ban May Strike Military"

"Smoking Ban May Strike Military"

Fox News has this:

U.S. soldiers are trained to handle deadly weapons and smoke out enemies but they may soon find that they aren't allowed to handle cigarettes and light up a smoke.

Pentagon health experts are pressing Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and ends its sale on military property, according to USA Today.

Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, told the newspaper that he will advise Gates to adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.

The study by the Institute of Medicine calls for a phased-in ban over a period of perhaps up to 20 years.

"We'll certainly be taking that recommendation forward," Smith told the newspaper.

The VA and the Pentagon requested the study, which found that troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a "stress reliever." The study also found that tobacco use in the military rose after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

Tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity, according to the study, which was released last month and used older data. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends up to $6 billion in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses, the study found. . . . .


Smoking both calms and increases alertness, both of which are valuable for soldiers who have to go on patrol.
"Indoor Smoking Ban Takes Steam Out of Pipe Convention"

"Indoor Smoking Ban Takes Steam Out of Pipe Convention"

Nothing like protecting people from themselves:

ST. CHARLES, Ill. — There will be no indoor smoking at a large convention for pipe smokers in Illinois.

A new Illinois law bans smoking in public places. That's taken some of the steam out of this weekend's Chicagoland International Pipe & Tobacciana Show in St. Charles.

The event draws 4,000 pipe collectors from more than 60 countries. Organizers tried to get around the new law by arguing their gathering was a private club meeting. Police and health officials said no.

Instead, a large smoking tent has been set up 15 feet away from the Pheasant Run convention center.

Convention-goer Al Shinogle of Denver likens it to a wine tasting without the wine.
Smoking ban and workers

Smoking ban and workers

Question from reader of Freedomnomics:

What you write about customers voting with their feet on whether a bar should allow smoking makes sense. In this state, though, the pro-ban forces made the argument about the health of bar employees, whose choice about smoking is limited to choosing whether or not to work at a particular bar. (Usually customers have more voice than employees, of course.) What's your response to the concept that smoking bans should occur because of the bad effects of second-hand smoke on those bars' employees?


My answer is that the argument for workers is exactly the same as it is for customers. If employees are asked to work in less desirable place, you will have to pay them more to get them to do it. Firms compete for workers on the basis of salary and other dimensions, such as work place quality. Firms have to see how much they have to pay these workers to work in a smoke filled room and how much smoking customers are willing to pay for that service. If the cost of the workers is less than what the customers are willing to pay, some restaurants will offer smoking.
Further Harassing Smokers

Further Harassing Smokers

Possibly someone could explain the externality from letting people smoke outside the building. This is from the Baltimore Examiner:

BALTIMORE (Map, News) - Banished smokers taking nicotine breaks outside bars in one of Baltimore City’s trendy neighborhoods are being told to move or face fines and arrest for loitering, bar owners said.

Hampden bar owners said they were shocked last week when police began warning patrons to move 150 feet away from the entrance of bars they were patronizing or face loitering charges. . . . .
Getting Around Minnesota's Smoking Ban

Getting Around Minnesota's Smoking Ban

This story is too funny:

MAPLEWOOD, Minn. — All the world's a stage at some of Minnesota's bars.

A new state ban on smoking in restaurants and other nightspots contains an exception for performers in theatrical productions. So some bars are getting around the ban by printing up playbills, encouraging customers to come in costume, and pronouncing them "actors."

The customers are playing right along, merrily puffing away — and sometimes speaking in funny accents and doing a little improvisation, too.

The state Health Department is threatening to bring the curtain down on these sham productions. But for now, it's on with the show.

At The Rock, a hard-rock and heavy-metal bar in suburban St. Paul, the "actors" during "theater night" do little more than sit around, drink, smoke and listen to the earsplitting music.

"They're playing themselves before Oct. 1. You know, before there was a smoking ban," owner Brian Bauman explained. Shaping the words in the air with his hands, like a producer envisioning the marquee, he said: "We call the production, `Before the Ban!"'
UK: "Smokers would have to get a licence to light up under the plan"

UK: "Smokers would have to get a licence to light up under the plan"

The BBC reports on licensing for smokers in the UK:

No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England.
Its chairman, Professor Julian Le Grand, told BBC Radio 5 Live the scheme would make a big difference to the number of people giving up smoking.

But smokers' rights group Forest described the idea as "outrageous", given how much tax smokers already pay.
Professor Le Grand, a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair, said cash raised by the proposed scheme would go to the NHS. . . . .
Jason Lewis Gives Inspired Commentary on Private Property and Smoking Bans

Jason Lewis Gives Inspired Commentary on Private Property and Smoking Bans

Jason Lewis commentary on KTLK can be listened to here. The discussion is from yesterday. This segment is an hour long, but it is worth it. Jason's other shows can be found here.

His discussion on the enforcement of smoking bans by relying on neighbors reminded me of a trip to Sweden in 1979. There was a public campaign against people getting drunk and neighbors were asked to turn in neighbors who were getting drunk in their home. I was stunned at the time to see police forceably removing people from their homes based on being informed on by their neighbors, but the Swedes that I was with thought that it was all entirely reasonable because people didn't have the right to harm their own bodies when others had to foot their healthcare bills.
Problably the last place where it be legal to smoke in your office

Problably the last place where it be legal to smoke in your office

The "Bogus" Science of Secondhand Smoke

The "Bogus" Science of Secondhand Smoke

This person must be really hated among medical people, but my guess that he is sufficiently only that he is willing to go against the political correctness on the smoking issue. Look at his background: "former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes."

In any case, from an economist's point of view, the entire debate over secondhand smoke is largely besides the point when it comes to these regulations. The question an economist would ask is whether whatever harm from the secondhand smoke in born by the smoker, and the answer is that there is not a problem as long as someone owns the air. In a restaurant or other building someone clearly owns the air and bears the cost of allowing the air to have more smoke in it than their customers desire. Some people may like to smoke with their meals and they will pay to do it and others might want perfectly clean air. Even if you only had one restaurant in town, the restaurant owner has a strong incentive to give the customers who value the type of air the most what they want.

Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.

Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time."

Such claims are certainly alarming. But do the studies Carmona references support his claims, and are their findings as sound as he suggests?
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)