Awesome New Bill Would Let Local Governments Ban Smoking in All Bars

Share With Friends

Hell yeah Dan Frankel! Banning indoor smoking is a public health no-brainer. Bar owners and smokers always freak out about these kinds of laws, arguing that people will stop going to bars, but it never happens. People who didn’t go to bars before because they didn’t want to smell stinky more than make up for the tiny number of folks who actually stop going. It’s not fair for a handful of smokers to poison everybody else’s air.

Patricia Sabatini:

Local governments across Pennsylvania could enact tougher bans on smoking than what is called for by the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act under legislation expected to be introduced today by state Rep. Dan Frankel.

Currently, the state’s no-smoking law takes precedence, offering some workplaces an exemption, most notably casinos and bars.

Mr. Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, on Wednesday called the indoor air act, which took effect in 2008 after more than a decade of legislative wrangling, “a monumental half-step forward” in protecting the public against the dangers of second-hand smoke.

He said he supported eliminating all exemptions in the law, but didn’t believe it was a realistic goal because of strong opposition from affected businesses.

“I’d rather do it uniformly across the state, but if the state isn’t prepared to do it, let’s not prohibit local governments from protecting the health of their citizens,” he said.

Under Mr. Frankel’s amendment, Allegheny County or the City of Pittsburgh would be free to ban smoking in all bars, for example.

This entry was posted in Health.

45 Responses to Awesome New Bill Would Let Local Governments Ban Smoking in All Bars

  1. marbee says:

    Do you realize that we live in a Constitutional Republic? If our country was a democracy, 51% of the people could decide they want to kill the other 49%. That is why our nation is a Constitutional Republic!
    Anti-tobacco anti-smoking proponents spend obscene amounts of money demonizing smoking like the nazi’s did. This has created hatred against an entire segment of society. They deliberately make people think that private property that opens to the public and public property that is taxpayer funded are one and the same. They are NOT! The public loses nothing with smoking bans forced on private property owners. They do not pay the taxes or upkeep on these privately owned businesses. They are accountable for nothing, including the losses incurred by these people who have invested their own money and sweat to hold on to a little bit of the American dream. If you don’t like smoke, DON’T GO! There was never a law that said a bar owner had to allow smoking, there should not be one that says you have to ban smoking! Our citizens died fighting for these rights! Now we have veterans standing outside in the rain and cold knowing their own country has turned it’s back on what they fought for. Our lawmakers of today don’t even have a clue what our Constitution stands for, they should be booted out, and John Q. Public should be ashamed!

    • Jon says:

      I bet when they banned smoking on airlines and buses people were comparing the pro-clean air folks to Hitler too.

      • Billy says:

        Yea just think if they would have spent that much money upon security instead of anti smoking 911 might not have happened! Personally I would rather sit beside a smoker smoking away than a person trying to point eat saying Alah Kabahr

        • Karel Minor says:

          You know, when I quit smoking because of that study I saw I thought maybe I was overreacting. I thought, what possible connection could smoking have with becoming a bigot and my penis shrinking? I didn’t want to risk it.

          OK, OK, to be fair, I know smokers aren’t bigots and and I’m sure they have perfectly acceptable penises. But, you, Billy, I must wonder….

          • Billy says:

            Received this in my email but I do not see the posting of this :
            Karel Minor commented on Awesome New Bill Would Let Local Governments Ban Smoking in All Bars.
            “You know, when I quit smoking because of that study I saw I thought maybe I was overreacting. I thought, what possible connection could smoking have with becoming a bigot and my penis shrinking? I didn’t want to risk it. OK, OK, to be fair, I know smokers aren’t bigots and and I’m sure they have perfectly acceptable penises. But, you, Billy, I must wonder….
            My response:
            I am 60 years old with a cutie wife 13 years younger than I. I am a smoker, have been for over 40 years. A CDL physical every two years that cost me over $12,000 in my insurance cost and I don’t use Viagra. Sounds to me if perhaps you might think about Viagra as it seems you might benefit from it.

      • CarolT says:

        Their pseudo-science is just like that of the Nazis because it’s based of lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection. But today’s anti-smokers are even more evil, because the Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, while they CANNOT.

  2. marbee says:

    Of COURSE anti-smokers want a smoking ban and favor taxes foisted on some another segment of the population! It’s a form of legal BULLYING! Of COURSE anti-smokers don’t care that business owners lose their private property rights and citizens lose theirs for the legislatively forced preference of others, it’s another form of legal bullying! Of COURSE, they’re BULLIES! There is absolutely no basis since this has all been exposed as a sham like ClimateGate called SmokeGate. They use bogus “science” to hoodwink uneducated legislators into making unconstitutional laws in the name of “public health” that in essence just wipes out the competition in a brilliant marketing scam for pharmaceutical nicotine, and these legislators have no idea that they’ve given away OUR farm! The World Health Organization’s study showing that SHS may even have a protective effect and not the least harmful was withheld because it didn’t promote total control of the population. Need proof?
    An abstract of the study is available here: .
    The entire study can be found here.
    The WHO’s press release is located here.

  3. marbee says:

    One only has to look at the marketing strategies by Johnson & Johnson, makers of their own brand of nicotine in droplets stuck in a piece of gum and bariatric surgery that maims the demonized overweight people, and all of the deadly drugs they’ve put out lately that has resulted in recalls, and the fact that they were busted for bribery recently, to see that lobbying for smoking bans is an albeit brilliant marketing scam. Tobacco is in the nightshade family that includes potatoes, tomatoes, broccoli, cauliflower. Should we ban those? Not yet, pharma doesn’t have a substitute, but they do have vitamins, thus the push to ban raw milk, herbs, junk food, soda, and backyard gardens. They use bogus “science” to hoodwink uneducated legislators into making unconstitutional laws in the name of “public health” that in essence just wipes out the competition in a brilliant marketing scam, and these legislators have no idea that they’ve given away OUR farm. More and more people are paying attention, We The People DEMAND the nanny state retreat to the scum ponds from which they came!

  4. History Buff says:

    A privately owned business is not public property. It is PRIVATE and you are invited in IF you care to enter. Your choice!, not your dictate and you do not pay the bills. As far as it affecting businesses, the smoking bans have killed MANY businesses of various categories. You need to stop reading so much put out by the industry that began all the propaganda for their own profits. Follow the money and stop the nonsense before they go into the razor blade business and make bald heads mandatory with their ‘paid for’ science using their grants!

  5. Billy says:

    A public records request to the Pa Department of Health revealed that there are 2,796 businesses that sought exemption from the State Wide Smoking Ban that was enacted in Pa..
    This does not include those organizations such as the VFWs, American Legions, Moose, Elks or other groups that didn’t even need to apply for an exemption.!
    One needs to go no further than a few miles from Pa. to see the result of radical smoking bans. If your a veteran and you want to visit the Bridge Port , Ohio American Legion it’s closed as a result of the smoking ban.
    As we know tax money is being used to lobby for theses bans, that by itself should raise alarm from tax payers. The anti smoking cartel is against any compromise that is irrational.

  6. marbee says:
    ” Nearly 500 Minnesota bars and restaurants have closed since smoking bans were enacted in the land of 10,000+ unemployed hospitality workers.
    A newly discovered official report from the State of Minnesota Auditor’s Office proves what many of us against smoking bans always knew, smoking ban activists lied to the public and lawmakers when they said smoking bans were “good for business”. This State of Minnesota official report found that one year after the statewide smoking ban, revenue was down on average 31.9% in bars and taverns.”

  7. “Awesome new bill” eh? It’s funny how Antismokers will scream and holler to high holy heaven about how urgent it is that ONLY a “Level Playing Field” ban across an entire state will work.

    Until they hit a situation where the state ban isn’t as strong as they’d like it. At that point of course they’ll completely ignore everything they’d said before and instantly become Champions Of Awesome Local Control !

    And then of course, two years down the line, they’ll complain about what a HORRIBLE idea this AWESOME idea actually is, and push for a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD again… except that they’ll insist that it be based on whatever the strongest local law is that they’ve pushed through in the interim.

    Smoking bans are based on lies and tricks, and this is simply another example. To read more about them, go to and read “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans.” Feel free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms of anything you find in it: I promise I won’t mind, and I’ll try to stop back…

    and make AWESOME responses.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

    • Karel Minor says:

      I can’t be more awesome than just saying cigarette smoke is nasty when you aren’t smoking. So is Yagermeister when you aren’t drinking, but no one pours it down my throat when I’m drinking a beer (or wine spritzer) next to someone else. If you could find a way to smoke without it being so f-ing obnoxious to everyone else, I’m all for it. Hell, do lines off the bar as long as it isn’t shot up my nose. Or even vote Republican, as long as it doesn’t pull my lever. Isn’t the point of all this libertarian crap that it doesn’t impact everyone else? Have all the smoking- or no women- or no Muslims or brown people or homos- you want. Just make it a private club. But if I (and mostly 80% of the world) want to have some chesse fries and a beer without also having to inhale tobacco, I think we should be able to do so.
      And, yes, I know that is utterly arbitrary and debateable. But can we debate it without this bullshit screed about Hitler and New World Orders or whatever? I’m not a fan of either (and, yes, I know no one mentioned NWO, I was just being a punk). Oi. And, no, I’m not Semetic (not that there’s anything wrong with that), Billy, just expressing frustration.

      • Karel, You did know that alcohol is a known carcinogen didn’t you? And of course you are exhaling those alcohol fumes into the air.(Otherwise breatholizers wouldn’t work) I am a Libertarian and yes our philosophy is that you have a right to do as you wish as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. The problem with your logic is that you think that you have the right to have it your way on property you don’t own. The rights belong to the owner and they have a right to choose what clientel they want to cater to. You have the right to choose what businesses you will patronize based on their decisions. See how that works? So it is not crap.

        • Karel Minor says:

          Easy question: White folks only OK in the bar?

          And I can’t smell your breath across a room like I can smell smoke. Well, maybe your breath.

          • Didn’t answer the question did you? What makes you think your rights supercede those of the owner? Perhaps these words from Ayn Rand can help you out.

          • Karel Minor says:

            That’s because I was losing steam at being the sole voice speaking for my nazi tobacco hating brethren and having too much fun making halitosis jokes. Answer: The same way that zoning and safety ordinances do, or equal accomodation rules (so you can’t have an all white/black grocery store), or open a nuclear waste respository on “your” land. We allow infringement on property rights as a matter of societal course in a wide array of ways and always have. Smoking bans have become accepted as one of them. Personally, I’ve never advocated for one, I just like that I can go to a restaurant without smelling smoke. Goody for me. Property rights do not and never have held utter dominion. I can’t open a strip club in my residential neighborhood and the government plans to seize American land to pump Canadian oil to China via the Keystone XL. Compared to eminant domain, a little restriction of smoking is nothing.

          • And I can’t smell your breath across a room like I can smell smoke. Well, maybe your breath.”

            Karel, Marshall’s point is quite valid if you want to argue this from a health perspective. As long as you’re willing to make the choice and say “No, I’m ONLY arguing this from a perspective of saying ‘Gee, I don’t like the smell’ then I don’t think anyone would have an argument with you.

            Once you cross the boundary into wanting laws based upon health arguments you have to be prepared to defend that justification though.

            – MJM

          • Karel Minor says:

            I don’t think I ever mentioned health (although the insistence that there are no health issues in the face of so many health professionals saying otherwise seems suspect). Nearly every reply I have made has been in response to frail economic arguments against, silly claims about what people can do with private property which fly in the face of reality, some outright racism, and having anyone who disagrees getting called hitler (or at least hitler-esque). I’m down with arguing the role of the government in controlling property or not, economic pros and cons, health justifications, or if it just smells yucky enough to ban. But most of the response (and not yours at all beyond defending moronic posts) dont do that. They just come off as paranoid, nasty whack jobs. Maybe the absence of these chucklesheads because they cant smoke at the bar is what I’m enjoying so much following the ban, I’m just mistaking the clean air for being the cause of my pleasure.

          • Karel you said “I have made has been in response to frail economic arguments against, silly claims about what people can do with private property which fly in the face of reality, some outright racism, and having anyone who disagrees getting called hitler (or at least hitler-esque)”

            First on your Nazi/Fascist comment, You are correct that it is being used. It is being used by both the left and the right and they are both correct, I have written on the subject.

            Which brings us to your property rights issue, your comment about what people can do on private property is what flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. You use the argument that one bad law justifies another. You ignore the fact that the Constitution and The Bill of Rights forbid it namely the fifth amendment. ” nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

            You seem to like to put things in racial terms, so let’s do that. The Jim Crow laws were the government dictating to businesses who they can and cannot cater to. How is this different? Before you say science remember the progressives of old used the sudo-science called Eugenics to justify the Jim Crow laws. At least with the Jim Crow laws there was a pretence of separate but equal. Do you see these laws allowing any business to cater to smokers?

            On the economics you are just dead wrong, I have written on this subject too.

      • Billy says:

        Smokers asked who is next and what is next?
        Well we saw how radical the anti smoking cartel is. We now see the ban this and that make attacks upon the overweight. We see the Mayor of NY Bloomberg ban smoking in open air parks, ban hydrogenated oil, try to ban salt, try to ban sugar, try to ban large soft drinks but Where does he get off trying to be a mother?

        Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.
        Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.
        Read more:
        PS Karel private clubs are banned from doing what you suggest that is part of the problem you even took that option away!

        • Karel Minor says:

          You can’t say “both sides have done that” here. Here, one side has called people nazis- the ones complaining about the ban. You can’t simply quote the Bill of Rights. It is open to interpretation (hence the Supreme Court) and what I said was entirely accurate and upheld by the most conservative justices: the government may take property for some “higher interest”, even COMMERCIAL interests when the property is taken by the government and given to other private individuals. That crap is straight from the lips of the Scalia’s and Thomas’. So a little regulation of use is hardly a shocker. There also also a vast difference (in most people minds and the law at least) between restricting what people can DO and restricting a person from doing something because of what they ARE. That is the reason we are seeing the creeping equality of gays now that most people aren’t thinking them to just be behaving gay any more than a black person behaves their skin black. Again, take that bill of rights fight up with the supreme court which is in the hands of very conservative constructionists. I, for one, still wonder why the DEA is busting State permitted medical marijuana facilities. I have no idea what any of those people in Washington are thinking most of the time.

          For all the nonsense being through around here about eugenics, breastfeeding, health care and the like, the very first comment on this post was accusing those who support a smoking ban of not caring about property rights (and that was the nice accusation) and then moved on to comparing ban supporters to nazis. It went downhill from there. I would encourage you to look at the discourse used in comments elsewhere on this blog. Jon and I have gone at it over property taxation- I’ve even gotten snippy to the point of feeling the need to apologize- but it didn’t devolve into this insane bullshit, let alone start out in a post with “and I bet you stomp on white, Christian babies for fun”.

          I think there are really good arguments to be made for and against these bans, and soda taxes and this and that, based on economics, property rights, health, what I like, the color of the sky, you name it. But the only side arguing against the ban here, not elsewhere but right here, are not debating, they are spouting some pretty vile crap and the ones who aren’t going full on vile crap spewing, like you, ignore the bigoted rhetoric and assertions of the other that the pro-ban side hopes for the decline of civilization. “Well, Karel, aside from Ted calling you a nazi loving child rapist, he has a pretty good point about property rights. Respond?” It makes it very easy to ignore the oppostion when the choose not to engage in real discourse but instead behave here, here, again, here, like, frankly, enormous assholes.

          And since I really never had a horse in this race to begin with other than not appreciating posters going from zero to nazi in two seconds, I am bowing out of further discussion I don’t really care about anyway. Let me know when we get back to talking about land taxes and why Corbett let a now convicted pedophile keep raping children. Later I’ll go have my default carcinogen of choice, a beer, because for all the cigarette whiners know, I might be among the 95 MILLION Americans who have smoked pot but not among the 23 million who risked arrest and seizure of assets last year to by smoking it because it is banned not just in bars but in our own homes. Now they have something to sing the blues about while you are just having to stand out on the stoop.

          I said might be among. I’m out (and here I drop the mic and skulk off the stage).

  8. Oh, and as a P.S. … would this “local control bill” allow local governments to simply rescind the ban altogether? Of course not: the “local control” will only work in the one direction that its antismoking sponsors want it to work in: toward more restrictions. Despite their brave words they’re absolutely terrified at the prospect of counties suffering under a stricter ban having to compete with a county next door that’s rescinded their ban. So much for their faith in how the ban will be “good for business” eh?

    Another way to find “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” booklet in case actual active links won’t post here is to simply Google “V.Gen5H” and click on the top “Health Arguments” link.

    – MJM

  9. Billy says:

    Will a ban on gun ownership become a local affair? Why not?
    “She said $1,000 grants are available to jurisdictions that pass tobacco-free ordinances. The grants can be used for such costs as putting up signs and communications with residents.”
    Will $1000 buy a ban on gun ownership under in the name of Public Health?
    How about banning overweight people from public display as it might give the impression of seeing overweight people as social acceptance.

  10. harleyrider1778 says:

    Official: Smokers Actually Visit Bars Less Often Now
    Health Dept. Corrects Report On Smoking Ban

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Department of Health has corrected a report on the impact of the statewide smoking ban following questions by a state senator.

    Director Theodore Wymsylo says smokers and non-smokers were flipped in a chart showing how frequently they’ve visited bars since the ban took effect in 2007.

    The graph now shows that 40 percent of current smokers who were surveyed say they visit bars less often, while about 7 percent of non-smokers say they go more often.

    Republican Sen. Bill Seitz, of Cincinnati, and the ban’s opponents have seized on the report, saying it’s flawed and its executive summary omitted certain figures.

    The Ohio Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Oct. 19 in a constitutional challenge to the ban brought by bar and restaurant owners.

    Read more:

  11. Bob says:

    In my working class neighborhood in Chicago, after the first winter, many small adult bars had to decide whether to allow smoking, or close. The only complaints are to police from the neighbors of the bars that comply due to smokers congregating, attracting undesirables who the owners do not allow to enter. He has no control over the PUBLIC sidewalk. Off duty police refuse to stand outside on the street when they patronize a neighborhood bar.

  12. Karel Minor says:

    The economic argument of 40% decrease in bar going by smokers and only 7% increase by non smokers may have a marginal impact in the highest smoking rate states like Ohio but in most, including PA, that offsets to the positive with a decrease of 8.3 smokers but and increase of 11.4 non-smokers going to bars per 100. Smoking is one of the few things people do which intrudes directly on everyone else, whether one chooses to ignore decades of research on second hand smoke impact or not. Private property which is open to the public comes with limitations, whether it’s zoning, smoking (increasingly), or whether I can take off my pants and rub myself in public. Hitler aside, while there are some reasonable arguments to be made about what we can ban its not as black and white as “my place, my rules”. Should a bar be allowed to ban blacks or women? Do the histrionic repliers here go all the way and endorse total legalization of drugs, prostitution, overturning of zoning regs, decrease in age of consent laws to the lowest possible level (any age at all?), and all the other things their cut and dry arguments would seem to call for? Are there any limits? Or do they just want to protect their preferred vice?

    • Billy says:

      “Should a bar be allowed to ban blacks or women?” Answer this if you would? In Michigan which in Dearborn has a high population of Muslims would you say it was OK for them to ban women from a bar as they can easily try to facilitate excuses for doing so.
      But funny the ban in Ohio was supposed to reduce smoking according to you it did not!

      • Karel Minor says:

        I don’t think I said anything about decrease in smoking, just that the economic argument is weak since its limited at worse, a wash for some, and a benefit for most. And, no, a Muslim bar could not ban women for religious reasons- which would be funny since they also aren’t permitted to drink! Just as chick fil a can fund all the anti-gay stuff they want but can’t refuse to serve gays (btw, I also profoundly disagree with the Mayor of Boston seeking to ban a new store based on their political speech and spending. If they refused to hire or serve gays it would be one thing but just opposing them is not the same). Bars are not churches, despite the toilet bowl worshipping they inspire ;)

        • Billy says:

          You hit the nail on the head! “And, no, a Muslim bar could not ban women for religious reasons- which would be funny since they also aren’t permitted to drink!. ” So why should people like yourself and non bar customers have a right to ban smoking where they never go even without a religious reason?

  13. Billy says:

    By your reasoning and with a better legal reason drag racing should be banned. Drag racing is illegal in every state I can think of as a danger to the public on PUBLIC ROADWAYS.
    The illegal act however is allowed to take place upon PRIVATE PROPERTY however! Drag racing has led to the death and injury of the public at such events including the participants as well. Drag Racing produces air pollution that makes any SHS look like the danger of a humming bird passing gas! It creates excessive noise levels that can damage the hearing of public at such events as well.
    So by your reasoning you should be screaming for Drag Racing to be banned regardless of location!
    Smokers asked who is next and what is next.

    • Karel Minor says:

      And there are communities which have opted out of racetracks for the noise pollution which the neighbors would be forced to contend with. My point is that there are arguments based on logic, data, community standards, health concerns, and liberty which can be had. The shrieking here is more about who loves Hitler. It’s a bit shrill.

  14. Billy says:

    The world gave Hitler a inch, smokers gave anti smokers a inch about the only difference is that the anti smoking cartel has not tried to exterminate smokers, oops they already have in some areas by denying health care to smokers!

  15. Karel, you wrote, “The economic argument of 40% decrease in bar going by smokers and only 7% increase by non smokers may have a marginal impact in the highest smoking rate states like Ohio but in most, including PA, that offsets to the positive with a decrease of 8.3 smokers but and increase of 11.4 non-smokers going to bars per 100.”

    It sounds like you may have correctly examined the influence of decrease/increase of proportions, but

    A)I think there may be another number in there that’s important. Can’t put my finger on it at the moment but it just *feels* like there’s something missing having to do with the base proportions of smoker-drinkers vs. nonsmoker-drinkers.

    B) The analysis doesn’t take into account the drinking habits of the smokers (who, according to antismoking studies tend to be far more “alcoholic” than nonsmokers) vs. nonsmokers. A bar with the same number of people, but with most of them nursing a single wine spritzer, wouldn’t make the same money as a bar full of hard drinkers.

    C) If business after a ban WAS actually better, then why not simply rescind the bans in the states where they’ve been in effect? Obviously the bars aren’t going to jump to a business model where they’d lose money: the Antis could prove their point to the world. But do they ever want to try that? No. Why not? Because they know it’s not true.

    D) How do you explain what happened in Minnesota to their pull-tab numbers responding so directly to their partial and full bans? See p. 19 of my “Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” at: for the very simple graph that’s there. The figures I based that graph on are easily available and all public record and NO ONE, out of all the hundreds of times I’ve brought it up to antismoking groups and individuals on the internet and elsewhere, has EVER found any real fault with those figures or the argument.

    E) How do you explain the very clear change in wholesale/resale vs. retail/home alcohol numbers for Ohio that OoOB has shown? (Sorry… don’t have the link handy on that at the moment, but are you familiar with the argument/figures there?)


    • Karel Minor says:

      I guess I should have read down before typing! Again, I can’t explain an of these things, wasn’t really trying (other than to smack at some pretty lame posts which could be attacked while sitting in a parking lot with an iphone and three minutes). I think it just comes down to the fact that I can’t eat or drink my beer on the street outside the bar, but you can smoke out there. And my eating and drinking in the bar doesn’t do anything to you.
      There are lots of limitations to actions. Many have been removed (I can marry a black woman), some will be removed soon (I can smoke dope if I get cancer- coming to state near you soon)- I can say “bullshit” three times in the first ten minutes of Covert Affairs (USA’s sassy spy drama- don’t miss it!) season premier. But some things are going out of vogue. Like smoking. That’s a bummer. But I have always had an eye for potty mouthed black women with bongs, so I’m in great shape!

      OK, that was pretty awesome, right?

  16. Oh! Karel, and I forgot completely to mention the British experience. In the two years prior to their ban their pub closure rate was about 3 pubs/week. The first year of the ban it shot up to 27 per week (a 900% increase.) In the second year it went to 36/week. And in the third year it went up to FIFTY TWO per week. I think it’s back down around 30 per week at this point… maybe there just aren’t that many pubs left.

    And it can’t be blamed on “The Economic Meltdown” any more than the Minnesota pull-tab dips could be. Brit historian Christopher Snowdon analyzed post-ban closure rates in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England. All began their bans at different points in time and all showed pretty much the same change in closure rate increases regardless of the actual dates at which the bans started.

    – MJM

  17. Karel Minor says:

    Jon, I guess now you know people ARE reading Keystone. Really irate smoking people. But what do they think about land/property taxation?….

    • Taxation is theft!! Taxation is the power to destroy.

      If you remember the real legend of Robin Hood, he robbed the taxers and the tax collectors but the leftist amongst us have bastardized it into a theft from the rich to give to the poor. Here’s a snip from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
      “I’m after a man whom I want to destroy.  He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.”

      “What man?”

      “Robin Hood.”

      “He was the man who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.  Well, I’m the man who robs from the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.”

      “This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness.  It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived.  He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor.  He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity.  He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does….Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.” – Ragnar Danneskjold

  18. Karel, you wrote, “Are you pitching your fit on this blog from the UK?”

    1) I think anyone who reads my comments on here will disagree with the picture that I’m “pitching a fit” in my arguments.

    2) No, my arguments are based upon 20 to 30 years of reading and writing and discussion in this area.

    3) As noted earlier: if your main concern is truly with stuff like not liking the smell of smoke, then we have very little quibble. You’re welcome to go to smoking-banned bars and restaurants and such while I go to smoking-optional ones. My fight comes into play when the government imposes the bans on the basis of false secondhand smoke worker-protection type arguments. If you feel my characterization of them as false is incorrect, I’ve offered you a free resource that you can use to refute me: the quick-reading “Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” at:

    Feel perfectly free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms of any of my points there. You’ll note that my main economic arguments involve easily accessible government figures from US states — not from the UK. You’ll also notice that my science and health arguments are based upon studies selected by the Antismokers as being their favorites — not, as some non-literate posters have sometimes claimed, “tobacco industry studies.” And if you’d like more material, check out my ETS Exposure section at Antibrains dot com, or my 24 “Lies” at TheTruthIsALie dot com or my economics arguments at Pasan slash TheTruthIsALie dot com (avoiding multiple hotlinks here since some boards don’t like them.)

    Feel perfectly free to be critical, as long as you stay specific and substantive: I promise I won’t mind. And if you instead simply want to argue that some bars and restaurants should have the right to ban smoking in order to attract and accommodate people who don’t like the smell of smoke I will have absolutely NO argument with you.

    – MJM