العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolSMOKING BAN
No Smoking sign.
'Smoking bans' are public policies, including legal prohibitions and occupational safety and health regulations, that restrict tobacco smoking in workplaces and public spaces.
Rationale
The major rationale cited for smoking bans is the protection of workers, in particular, from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema and other chronic and acute diseases.[1][2] Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is often harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling secondhand smoke.
In addition, such laws may reduce health care costs in the short term but do not calculate for the increased health care cost of an ever ageing population, improve work productivity and lower the overall cost of labor in a community, thus making a community more attractive for bringing new jobs into the area and keeping current jobs and employers in an area.[3] In Indiana for example, the state's economic development agency wrote into its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth that it encourages cities and towns to adopt local smoke-free workplace laws as a means of promoting job growth in communities.
Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards or where flammable materials are handled (which are already included in health and safety legislation therefore not affected in any way by the new smoking legislation.), cleanliness in places where food or pharmaceuticals (such as nicotine replacement therapies are produced, meaning a large proffit from such legislation), semiconductors or precision instruments and machinery are produced, decreased legal liability (known as the damaging 'compensation culture' that has seen the flourishing of 'Ambulance chaser' law firms and the cancellation of many previously enjoyable events due to rising insurance costs), potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs (although the energy consumption of outdoor heaters used to provide smoking areas outdoors vastly outweighs any benefits that comes from a lack of ventilation - ventilation that was shown to reduce 'harmful' gasses from indoor smoking environments by as much as 90% (university of Glamogan study 2004), a fact that was ignored by the U.K government in its implenentation of the ban in England), reduced quantities of litter (except outside pubs and bars where cigarette litter is now a major problem), and to encourage current smokers to quit.[4]
Also, Judge Osteen's recent ruling into the EPA's 1993 study on the effects of second hand smoke have shown that links between ETS and cancer are still in doubt: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F04E7D71030F933A15754C0A96E958260
However anti-smoking organisations such as ASH still continue to use such studies and money from pharmaceutical industries to promote their own aggenda.
Medical and scientific basis for bans
Main articles: Passive smoking
Research has generated evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung ailments such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma.[5] Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20-30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16-19%.[6]
A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers.[7] Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium 210.[8] Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in secondhand smoke than in mainstream smoke.[9]
Scientific organizations confirming the harmful effects of secondhand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[10] the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,[11] the U.S. National Institutes of Health,[12] the United States Surgeon General,[13] and the World Health Organization.[14]
Air quality
Bans on smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) states that New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only second-hand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline.[15] The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans.
A 2004 study showed that in New Jersey, bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighboring New York City, which had enacted its ban.[16]
Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees.[17] For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking bans, tests showed improved (decreased) levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to the ban).[18]
History
Pope Urban VII's 13-day papal reign included the world's first known public smoking ban (1590), as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose."[19] But the first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under direct orders from Adolf Hitler himself.[20] Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.[21]
In the latter part of the 20th century, as research on the health risks of secondhand tobacco smoke were made public, the tobacco industry launched "courtesy awareness" campaigns. Fearful of revenue losses, the industry created a media and legislative program that focused on "accommodation". Tolerance and courtesy were encouraged as a way to ease heightened tensions between smokers and those around them while avoiding smoking bans. In the USA, states were encouraged to pass laws providing separate smoking sections.[22]
Up to this point, bans were limited to individual cities and counties. In 1975, Minnesota enacted the ''Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act'', making it the first state to ban smoking in most public spaces. To begin with, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act.[23]
In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking at all public places, including bars and restaurants.[24]
In 1998, California enacted a complete smoking ban that included an initially controversial ban of smoking in bars, extending the statewide workplace smoking ban enacted in 1994. The success and subsequent popularity of the California ban encouraged other states such as New York to implement bans of their own. There is an increasing trend for entire states or countries to pass laws banning smoking in various indoor public sites and workplaces, including bars, restaurants, and social clubs. There are now 35 states with some form of smoking ban on the books.[25]
Again in the forefront, some areas in California have recently begun making whole cities smoke-free, which would include every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California have passed park and beach smoking bans.
On March 29 2004 the Irish Government implemented a ban on smoking in public places. In Norway similar legislation was put into force on July 1 the same year. In 2007, with legislation affecting England coming into force, smoking in all enclosed public places was made illegal and banned in the entire United Kingdom. The age limit of smoking will also be raised from 16 to 18 on 1st October 2007. Smoking was also banned in public indoor venues in Victoria, Australia on July 1 2007.
Critique of bans
Smoking bans have been criticised on a number of grounds.
Government interference with personal lifestyle or property rights
A common argument opposing government prohibitions on public smoking is that they violate the rights of individuals and property owners. It is sometimes argued that smoking by adults is a personal lifestyle choice without victims. However, that lifestyle argument regarding the right to smoke as one pleases could be countered by another’s lifestyle right to breathe smokeless air, especially if one accepts the medical research that second-hand smoke is harmful to one’s health.
A more compelling argument for the right to smoke can be evoked when the owner of a property makes a conscious decision that smoking should be allowed and non-smokers are given warning of, and thus the option of avoiding, smoking at that property. The more private the property, the better the argument; smoking in one’s own home is a much stronger case than smoking in a public place such as a school, where non-smokers may be required to attend.
In between those extremes are locations such as workplaces, public shops and restaurants, bowling alleys and pool halls that are open to minors, adult locations such as bars that are closed to minors, and private clubs that are closed to the public. For workplaces, it can be argued that it is difficult to freely change one’s place of employment, and that an employee cannot reasonably be expected to leave a job if a smoker arrives and is allowed to smoke. At the other end of the spectrum, smoking with consenting poker buddies at a private club may differ little from doing so at one’s own home, although the club employees would still be exposed to ETS.
The biggest battle is over shops, restaurants and bars. When the property owner assents to smoking, many smokers will argue that non-smokers should just stay away. Non-smokers argue that they should be able to patronize certain establishments without exposing themselves to the risks of ETS, and point out that the government commonly regulates many aspects of food and liquor service for public health and safety.
To effect a compromise, some laws allow smoking where there are adequate physical barriers between smoking and non-smoking sections, and air from smoking sections cannot be mixed back into non-smoking sections.
Some critics of smoking bans, such as the artist Joe Jackson[26] and essayist and political critic Christopher Hitchens, claim that they are misguided efforts of retrograde Puritans.
Economic loss
It is sometimes argued that smoking bans hurt the business of those hospitality businesses, especially those near a border with a place that does allow smoking, such as another state or an Indian reservation, and there are media reports of individual establishments which have suffered reduced revenue since the ban came into effect. [27]
Disputes over scientific basis for bans
Some critics have disputed the scientific basis for bans on smoking (see tobacco smoking and passive smoking).
Perceived hypocrisy
Some countries hardly enforce their smoking bans, and continue to profit from tax on tobacco products. This was suggested as a reason for the UK not having a smoking ban in place.[28] However, a smoking ban is now in place in throughout entire country as of July 1 2007 (See Smoking bans by country.)
The "victimless crime"
It is argued that smokers who freely choose to smoke and are harming themselves, have the right to, in the same way that they are free to choose to take their own lives. Smoking bans should then create a "victimless crime". However, while this argument stands up when applied directly to groups composed entirely of adult smokers who have a conscious desire to breathe other smokers' second-hand smoke, this supposition does not take account of whether these groups include workers (who cannot easily find another job), disabled people (who are unable to choose their environments), pregnant women, or children, nor of the effects of passive smoking, or involuntary smoking, on others. Hence, in its strongest form, the "victimless crime" argument applies only to bans on smoking in private, which have rarely been imposed.
A common way of framing the issue to argue against bans on smoking in bars and similar public venues is one of property rights: workers and customers who enter a private establishment or household that allows smoking are said to have implicitly consented to the rules set by the owner of the establishment. Some argue that this principle does not hold up in relation to workers. Business owners are legally required to maintain a reasonably safe working environment, and cannot contract with their workers to relax this standard, nor can trade unions ignore the issue. However, cases based on injuries suffered by bar or restaurant employees due to second hand smoke have not, as of yet, been brought under any state's safe place law. Furthermore, most proposed smoking bans are advocated more heavily by potential patrons rather than bar or restaurant employees.
Questions over health costs of smoking
The main arguments against smoking being a "victimless crime" are the health risks of passive smoking and increased health costs borne by society. On the latter point, certain studies suggest that complete smoking cessation might actually result in an ''increase'' in total health care costs in the long run.[29] This possibility stems from the fact that non-smokers live longer on average and can thus incur higher total lifetime health care costs. Some argue that if non-smokers live longer, they also pay during their lifetime more taxes than smokers that statistically become ill and die earlier. Because smoking related deaths often occur around retirement age for many people, and thus around the time when a person begins to pay much lower income taxes, the premature death of a smoker probably presents a net gain for the government in health care costs. It can also be noted that in many countries (especially in the US and Europe) the tax on smoking raises revenues that significantly outweigh the costs of smoking to healthcare. For example, in the UK, the estimated cost of smoking to the NHS is £7 ($14) billion per year, however the estimated amount raised through taxes is around £16 ($32) billion per year.
Bans may move smoking elsewhere
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways and therefore shifting the problem elsewhere. Many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in enclosed public places have extended the ban to cover areas within a fixed distance of entrances to buildings[1].
A more serious concern is that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home, as claimed by former British Secretary of State for Health John Reid.[30] However, both the House of Commons Health committee and the Royal College of Physicians disagreed, with the former finding no evidence to support Reid's claim after studying Ireland, and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.[31]
Smoking bans by country
Main articles: Smoking bans by country
The only country in the world to have banned the sale and smoking of tobacco is Bhutan since early 2005.
California was the first state (or province) in the world to enact a workplace smoking ban in 1994, and a complete smoking ban in enclosed spaces in 1998. It had been the most populous single entity in the world to enact a complete smoking ban until July 1, 2007.
Ireland was the first country to ban smoking in all enclosed workplaces, in March 2004.
The largest whole nation in the world, by population, to have a complete indoor smoking ban including bars and private clubs is the United Kingdom, since July 1 2007 when England was the final home nation to do so after Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. It will be overtaken by France in 2008 when the existing ban will be extended to cover bars and cafés. Denmark has initiated a smoking ban in bars, clubs and restaurants as of August 15 2007. The Netherlands and Romania will initiate a smoking ban in bars and clubs as of July 1 2008.
Cigarette advertising
In many parts of the world tobacco advertising and even sponsorship of sporting events is not allowed. The ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the EU in 2005 has prompted the Formula One Management to look for races in areas that allow the heavily tobacco sponsored teams to display their livery, and has also led to some of the more popular races on the calendar being cancelled in favour of more tobacco friendly markets. However, pressure from fans has seen these decisions reversed, and Grand Prix such as the Belgian Grand Prix have re-appeared on the calendar. As of 2007, only one Formula One team now receives sponsorship from a tobacco company.
Alternatives to bans
Incentives for voluntarily smoke-free establishments
Some smoking ban opponents nonetheless concede that in many localities, the number of smoke-free bars and restaurants is insufficient to meet the needs and wants of residents who prefer a smoke-free environment. In order to encourage the creation of more smoke-free businesses, some experts and politicians support tax credits and other financial incentives for businesses that enact non-smoking policies. During the debates over the Washington, DC smoking ban, city Councilmember Carol Schwartz proposed legislation[2] that would have enacted either a substantial tax credit for businesses that chose to ban smoking or a significant additional licensing fee for bars and restaurants that wished to allow smoking. Proponents of such policies claim that they would help to increase the options for customers and employees who prefer a smoke-free bar or restaurant without infringing on the rights of business owners. Opponents of such tax measures counter that only a complete ban can fully protect patrons and employees.
Tradable smoking pollution permits
One solution to the problem of smoking externalities favoured by some economists is a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to other emissions trading (cap-and-trade) pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution. The proposal has been suggested by Profs. Robert Haveman and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[3]
Emissions trading systems are generally favored by economists as a market-based alternative to direct regulation, because they yield a given reduction in pollution at lower cost, and may permit a reduction in administrative costs. However, the idea is not applicable in all contexts, and there has been little analysis of the costs and benefits in relation to smoking.
Tradable pollution permits as a market-based alternative to smoking bans can be applied as follows: Lawmakers decide the optimal level of smoking establishments for an area. The total fire occupancies of those establishments is totaled up, and one smoking pollution permit is issued for each fire occupancy. Permits are then auctioned off, and establishments are required to hold permits equal to their fire occupancy if they wish to allow smoking -- in essence, they are required to own the property rights over the clean air space of every occupant before any can smoke. Establishments with unused permits can sell them on the open market to smoking establishments.
The effects of bans
Effects on health
In the first 18 months after the town of Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoking ban in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%. Admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change. The American Heart Association said, "The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of second hand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks."[32]
Similar findings are beginning to emerge from other areas which have enacted bans. Researchers at the University of Dundee found significant improvements in the health of bar staff in the two months following the ban. They tested bar workers' lung function and inflammatory markers a month before the ban came in, and again two months after it had been introduced. The number showing symptoms related to passive smoking fell from more than 80% to less than half, with reduced levels of nicotine in the blood and improvements in lung function of as much as 10%.[33]
Studies in Ireland and Scotland have already shown that the percentage of smokers in the country has increased since the passage of the smoking ban with changing habits due to the ban having led to creating new smokers. [4] Contributing to the increase in the number of smokers is the flirtation practice of ''smirting'', a ritual of flirting outside pubs using cigarettes as the social piece to do so. [5]
Effects on tobacco use
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence, summarized the results of its long-running research into the affects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects [sic] [tobacco] industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average."[34]
Effects on businesses
Smoking is prohibited on streets in some areas of Tokyo, hence smokers retreat into smoking lounges.
Although one of the most common sources of resistance to bans comes from businesses concerned that they will suffer financial losses due to lost customers, research seems to offer them some reassurances. A review published in 2003 of 97 studies on the economic effects of smoking bans on the hospitality industry shows that all the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bars laws on sales or employment.[35]
In the Republic of Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intent of protecting others, particularly workers, from passive smoking ("second-hand smoke") and as a measure to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. By and large, since the ban's introduction it has become accepted because penalties for violations are harsh, "outdoor" arrangements at many pubs (involving heated areas with shelters) were created in pubs that could afford them, and habits changed where many now choose to drink at home or at parties, which has had the effect of aiding the off licence trade.
Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "An evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc). It has been claimed that the ban was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs. However, other factors, such as increased beer prices recent strict enforcement of drink driving laws that occurred around the same time have also been blamed.[36]
In the USA, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from smoking bans. Some restaurateurs argued that smoking bans would increase the rate of dine and dashes where patrons declare they are stepping outside to smoke, while their intent is to leave. Others have countered that even if this occurred it could decrease the leisure (non-eating) time spent in the restaurants, resulting in increased turn-over of tables, which could actually benefit total sales. The experiences of Delaware, New York, California, and Florida have shown that businesses are generally not hurt, and that many hospitality businesses actually show increased revenues. According to the 2004 ''Zagat'' Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy.[7] A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review[38] of studies suggests that business may actually improve.[39] Thus, research generally indicates that business incomes are stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and many customers appreciate the improved air quality.
In 2003 New York City amended its anti-smoking law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it one of the toughest in the nation. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments.[40] A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results.[41]
A study in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after the imposition of a ban on smoking in enclosed places.[42]
Effects on law enforcement
Another effect of smoking bans has been the smokeasy. As the speakeasy was to alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century, so is the smokeasy to smoking bans: it is a business, especially a bar, which allows smoking despite a legal prohibition. Numerous clandestine smokeasies exist in most jurisdictions with smoking bans in bars and restaurants, and have been noted widely, including in New York City[43][44][45], California[46][47], Philadelphia[48][49], Dublin[50], Utah[51], Seattle[52], Scotland[50], Toronto[54], Ohio[55], and Washington, D.C..[56]
As a result, jurisdictions which have passed smoking ban often unexpectedly find themselves having to use law enforcement to enforce their smoking bans.[48][50][52]
Outdoor smoking bans
In some places with long-established strict indoor smoking bans, experiments with outdoor bans in specific contexts, especially in public or government-owned spaces, have begun. The state of California has also enacted certain outdoor smoking bans.
Smoking has been banned on the streets of Tokyo's Chiyoda Ward since October 2002. Ward employees patrol the streets and hand out ¥2000 fines to violators. According to the cigarette company Japan Tobacco, Inc., 60 municipalities, whose residents make up 10% of Japan's population, have regulations to ban or discourage people smoking on the street. However, only three municipalities assess fines for violations.
See also
★ Coronary heart disease
★ Indoor air quality
★ List of smoking bans in the United States
★ List of smoking bans worldwide
★ Smoke-free restaurant
★ World No Tobacco Day
★ Tobacco fatwa
★ Harm principle
★ Prohibition
★ Smokeasy
Organizations:
★ Action on Smoking and Health (A UK antismoking and non-smokers' rights organization)
★ Airspace Action on Smoking and Health
★ FOREST (A UK pro-tobacco group)
References
1. Smokefree legislation consultation response, The Institute of Public Health in Ireland
2. New health bill will ban smoking in majority of workplaces (UK Health Secretary: The smoking ban "is a huge step forward for public health and will help reduce deaths from cancer, heart disease and other smoking related diseases")
3. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; First international treaty on public health, adopted by 192 countries and signed by 168. See in particular Article 8 ''Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke''.
4. New health bill will ban smoking in majority of workplaces
5. European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: third version (2003)., Boyle P, Autier P, Bartelink H ''et al.'', , , Ann Oncol.,
6. Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of recent epidemiological evidence., Sasco AJ, Secretan MB, Straif K., , , Lung Cancer, 2004
7. Disparity in Protecting Food Service Staff from Secondhand Smoke Shows Need for Comprehensive Smoke-Free Policies, Say Groups
8. Involuntary smoking
9. Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke., Schick S, Glantz S., , , Tob Control., 2005
10. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: A monograph from the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Accessed August 6 2007.
11. Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet, from the Centers for Disease Control. Accessed August 6 2007.
12. Environmental Tobacco Smoke. From the 11th Report on Carcinogens of the National Institutes of Health. Accessed August 6 2007.
13. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Dated June 27 2006; accessed August 6 2007.
14. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking: A monograph of the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. Accessed August 6 2007.
15. Indoor Air Quality in Hospitality Venues Before and After Implementation of a Clean Indoor Air Law --- Western New York, 2003
16. Study Finds That New Jersey Bars and Restaurants Have Nine Times More Air Pollution than Those in Smoke-Free New York
17. Smoking ban leads to healthier bar staff
18. Airborne exposure and biological monitoring of bar and restaurant workers before and after the introduction of a smoking ban
19. ''Nicotine: An Old-Fashioned Addiction'', pp 96-98, Jack E. Henningfield, Chelsea House Publishers, 1985
20. Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger's forgotten tobacco epidemiology and the Nazi quest for racial purity Robert N Proctor, Pennsylvania State University
21. The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45 Robert N Proctor, Pennsylvania State University
22. Preemption/Accommodation presentation Tina Walls
23. Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA)
24. Letter to Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smokefree Legislation
25. How many Smokefree Laws?
26. The Official Website of Joe Jackson
27. N.J.'s Smoking Ban Hurts Restaurant, Bar Sales
28. Passive Commitment, , , , Lancet Oncol., 2003
29. The Health Care Costs of Smoking
30. MPs to challenge ministers' veto on total smoking ban
31. Smoking ban in public places also cuts smoking at home
32. Heart attacks decline after smoking bans American Heart Association
33. Scots bar staff health 'improved'
34. Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence John Heironimus
35. Scollo, M. ''et al.'' "Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry" ''Tobacco Control'' 2003; 12: 13-20 Abstract
36. Lister, David "Rural pubs will suffer from smoking ban", ''The Times'', 27 February 2007. Accessed 23 April 2007
37. Disparity in Protecting Food Service Staff from Secondhand Smoke Shows Need for Comprehensive Smoke-Free Policies, Say Groups
38. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General
39. Richard Roesler: Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke.
40. " Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says." 29 March 2003, ''The New York Times.''[6]
41. "Cig Ban no Bar Burden; Biz up Despite Law." 25 July 2006, ''The New York Post.''[7]
42. No smoke signals a boom for pubs, clubs - National - smh.com.au
43. Smoking Ban NYC Profile - 28 days.
44. "Sidewalk Soakings," ''The Villager'', June 25, 2003.
45. Empire State Smokeasies, ''Funkypundit Blog'', April 2, 2007
46. "California's Ban to Clear Smoke Inside Most Bars," ''The New York Times'', December 31, 1997
47. "The Land of Smoke-Easies, 0 Barfs," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'', May 15, 1998
48. "'Smoke-easys' ignore the tobacco ban", ''Philadelphia Inquirer'', March 27, 2007
49. "Smoke-easies", ''Fort Wayne News-Sentinel'', March 28, 2007
50. "Warning over 'smoke-easy' lock-ins," ''The Scotsman'', August 29, 2006
51. "Everyone Head for the Smoke-Easy," ''Utah Statesman'', December 12, 2006
52. "Smokers find refuge in secret nicotine dens", ''Seattlepi.com'', May 31, 2006
53. "Warning over 'smoke-easy' lock-ins," ''The Scotsman'', August 29, 2006
54. "Speakeasies? Nah, smoke-easies", ''The Toronto Sun'', May 25, 2006
55. "smoke-easies, altoid tins, blue moon, janis joplin and vivid imaginations" ''Yellow Is The Color Blog''
56. "Smoke-easies offer cover from puff police; Aficionados just want a place to light up, relax," ''The Washington Times'', November 20, 2003
57. "'Smoke-easys' ignore the tobacco ban", ''Philadelphia Inquirer'', March 27, 2007
58. "Warning over 'smoke-easy' lock-ins," ''The Scotsman'', August 29, 2006
59. "Smokers find refuge in secret nicotine dens", ''Seattlepi.com'', May 31, 2006
External links
★ Canadian Council for Tobacco Control
★ Clearing the Air Scotland Scottish Executive site established to provide information on Scotland's smoke-free legislation
★ Hong Kong Tobacco Control Office
★ Irish Government's Office of Tobacco Control
★ State Tobacco Laws from the American Cancer Society
★ Legacy Tobacco Documents Library from the University of California, San Francisco
★ Philip Morris USA Document Archive
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
