Minnesota’s smoking ban turns 1 today.
In the year since Minnesota banned smoking in public establishments, the results have been both predictable — revenues from pull tabs and other charitable games have taken a hit — and unexpected — using a loophole in state law, a group of people dressed in Renaissance costumes staged smoke-filled “theater nights” at several bars around the state.
But attitudes haven’t changed. Last winter, ClearWay Minnesota conducted a poll that found 76 percent of Minnesotans supported the Freedom to Breathe Act, which went into effect Oct. 1, 2007. A poll released last week found the figure virtually unchanged at 77 percent.
“I think the public has adjusted amazingly well. The law is just a part of Minnesota now,” ClearWay Minnesota spokeswoman Kerri Gordon said.
While the ban’s proponents have measured a whole slew of smoking-related statistics (the amount of nicotine and cigarette related chemicals in bar employees is way down), they seem to strenuously avoid the big ones.
How many bars and restaurants has the ban euthanized?
How many jobs have been lost?
Indeed, have more lives been lost to the stress of job losses and people driving farther to get to bars than from the (largely unproven) casualties of second-hand smoke?
How many new bars, clubs and restaurants have opened since smokefree ordinances/law began?
How many new jobs were created?
Indead, how many people will live longer, healthier lives because they are no longer exposed to the proven hazards of SHS at work?
How many new bars, clubs and restaurants have opened since smokefree ordinances/law began?
Fewer than have closed.
How many new jobs were created?
Fewer than were lost.
Indead, how many people will live longer, healthier lives because they are no longer exposed to the proven hazards of SHS at work?
A) The “proof” of those hazards is very questionable at best.
B) We don’t know. I will bet the cost savings likely amount to less than the costs of unemployment, welfare, retraining, tax revenue loss and costs related to unemployment/business-loss-related stress.
Mitch
“Fewer than have closed.”
Really, has anybody noticed a sudden dearth of bars and restaurants in St. Paul? Starting Gate shut down, but opened as a new African restaurant. Sidney’s closed and opened as Salut, Puerto Azul shut down and opened as Open Door, the list goes on.
“The “proof” of those hazards is very questionable at best”
Was the EPA wrong to classify SHS as a Class A carcinogen?
Do you disagree that SHS causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year?
If yes, why?
Simpiler solution… if you don’t like smoke then don’t patronize or work at an establishment where it is present or allowed.
That ought to increase whatever it is that Bob from the American Lung whatever wants… without eroding property rights.
Badda: I have no interest in debating the ban, but I am skeptical of any position whose advocates start by lying.
So, RickDFL is skeptical of many of his own positions. Interesting information.
The solution has already been reached, Badda.
Lying, RickFFL?
According to state Health Commissioner Dr. Sanne Magnan, tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Minnesota. It is responsible for nearly $2 billion in avoidable medical costs.
We could never reconsider, eh justpbob?
Yes, and we need to start daily evacuations based on the AQI too, to avoid more of the avoidable medical costs. Single Payer = Single Arbiter, and that stinks.
That’s highly unlikely, Troy.
It is also unlikely any changes will be made in the nation’s health care payment/delivery system, as whoever wins in November is going to have their hands full with the current economic mess for some time, I would imagine.
RickDFL; given that a judge rebuked the EPA’s statistical work for arbitrarily changing the level of confidence required in order to find a conclusion, YES, I do think that I’d be willing to challenge the claim that lives are being saved.
The fact of the matter is that no researchers ever get famous for demonstrating the null hypothesis, and hence the tendency (see “coffee study” for details) is to gently put one’s finger upon the scale to try and get something that you can ship. 95% confidence is one safeguard historically used to make it more obvious when someone’s finger is on the scales, and the EPA deliberately abandoned this.
I grew up with asthma, and I’m no fan of smoking. I also have little use for bars. However, I’m also no fan of deceptive research, and the fact of the matter is that the EPA was clearly caught with its finger on the scales in its infamous “study.” Bar owners should not be punished for the misconduct of the EPA.
If you really are “no fan of deception” you might have included that this judge was carefully “shopped” by the tobacco industry, which sued the EPA in the judge’s district in tobacco friendly North Carolina. The lower court judement you mentioned was quickly and completely vacated in 2002 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
In other words, Big Tobacco 0, American people 1.
If you haven’t noticed, RickDFL, most of the smokers are working class and poor folks. DFL hasn’t raised cigarette taxes lately, have they? Better be careful — if you drive up the tax on a pack of butts they won’t be able to afford lottery tickets.
I hear the DFL wants to ban smoking in aprtments but not in houses. No class issue there.
No wonder you don’t want to debate the issue.
Bob from AMBLAMBAAMAMLBAMA,
I’m sure you’d love to have everyone who opposess the ban to roll over. However, we still have a better solution… and you might see the issue come back, and you might regret that.
It isn’t highly unlikely… it is simply what you want. (It is apparently good for your business.)
“Rumors of my death…” something, something. That’s a quote from someone.
JustPBob, that doesn’t change the fact that the EPA deliberately changed the criteria from 95% confidence to 90% confidence–a move that will, ahem, tend to allow unscrupulous researchers (say those who would, ahem, shift the statistical confidence levels) to falsify evidence.
I don’t like cigarette smoke. I don’t think it’s healthy. However, the fact of the matter is that the EPA clearly got caught red handed here. There is no uncontaminated evidence linking second hand smoke to death, period.
Oh, and judge shopping? Well, exactly where do you think a company based in North Carolina ought to sue when it’s affected? Maybe California? Hawaii? This is in reality one of the clearest cases of NOT shopping for a judge that I can think of.
Bob’s a low-rent, middle-aged drone for a American Lung Association who frantically runs Google searches for blog posts that dare to say anything that runs even a few degrees contrary to his high-octane propoganda.
He hates private property and property rights, too.
Ask the Anti-Strib about Propoganda Bob.
As opposed to passive-aggressive losers who loaf around and dismiss any fact that mildly interferes with their cherished ideology with a vague ‘well it is not quite proven’.
Come on, who is going to show some real stones and deny cigarettes cause cancer? You know you are just dying to say it is all a liberal media conspiracy.
“Bob’s a low-rent, middle-aged drone for a American Lung Association who frantically runs Google searches for blog posts that dare to say anything that runs even a few degrees contrary to his high-octane propoganda.”
…and I’m good at it, too!
(smile)
As opposed to passive-aggressive losers who loaf around and dismiss any fact that mildly interferes with their cherished ideology
Hey, I was going to let your predictions about the surge just lay there.
Come on, who is going to show some real stones and deny cigarettes cause cancer?
Good lord, Rick – while I’m usually loathe to call names, you certainly rarely are. So – you are really thick as a brick if you think there’s no difference between inhaling a cigarette and being in the same room as “secondhand smoke”.
Rhetorical question, right Mitch?
It actually turns out, for what it’s worth, that it took about forty years of research for medical science to actually establish that cigarette smoke caused lung cancer, even in smokers. The conclusion was only made around 1995.
And Rick, you’re asking the wrong question. Step 1 in asking for legislation, at least on a sane planet, is to establish a problem and estimate its magnitude. Now if your 95% confidence range includes the null hypothesis, you go back to square one.
The only reason we have a ban is because government officials found they could not realistically enforce the indoor air quality standards they created.
So we now we have the totalitarian solution, enthusiastically supported by those who have no love of freedom. :-/
That’s Tic-Rick and Proboganda Bob to a “T”.
Proboganda?
Oi Gevalt.
The thing that sucks about bans is, even though smoking isn’t the healthiest thing in the world, banning it, especially in bars, is just one more personal freedom down the drain.
Bars were never health clubs. They’re places where grown-ups go to take the edge off. And tobacco has been part of that forever, and everyone who went to a bar knew that, gosh, there might be smoking there! And if they didn’t like it, they went to their local Lutheran bake sale, or to Starbucks and drank a decaf latte at night with the other soccer moms.
Bike Bubba:
“The conclusion was only made around 1995.” Coincidentally that was probably right around the time Big Tobacco stopped paying Republicans to pretend otherwise.
Seriously, could you guys maybe put out a guidebook of all the well-established truths you don’t ‘believe’ in. You guys down with oxygen or are you still holding out for phlogiston.
So Bob the Smoking Nazi is “justpbob Says” here. How clever. This creep earns a living by fighting against private property rights and freedom of association.
Congratulations, Mitch Every time Bob from ALMNWhatever posts God kills a kitten. That’s five dead kittens on this thread. Bob took out a litter.
Hey now everybody. RickDFL is right. There probably is a danger being around second hand smoke. I just hope that nobody ever finds any kind of possible danger in alcohol. Otherwise Rick and friends might have to cut those sales off also. For the children. And the rest of us who need supervision to keep us from ourselves. Anyone know the accident rate for kids on bikes? Swing sets? Swimming pools? Get rid of them all.
Anyone know the accident rate for kids on bikes?
Funny you should ask that, buzz.
http://anti-strib.blogspot.com/2008/09/biking-kills.html
Duce has the City Pages undies in a bundle over this one.
Buzz:
Before we can have that debate we need to have the basic facts about how dangerous certain products are. Since you people operate without any known empirical standards, we can’t have a debate.
Ideologues have no interest in “empirical standards”. They have an interest in running away when they get called on their bullshit, though.
How’d you pick the name RickDFL, anyway?
Rick, I believe you! Oh my God, it’s so risky! After all, there were about 3400 deaths/year for nonsmokers from second hand smoke according pbob and company!
But you’re aiming low! We have to ban recreational boating now because that’s the cause of 700 deaths/year. We can’t be letting people out on boats, you know. They can sit and watch from the bank!
Oh my God! There were 3300 deaths of just children under 5 from these dangerous items in 2000! We have to ban these killers! After all, there’s no reason anyone should have a backyard pool. WE HAVE TO BAN THEM FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Idiot. Regardless of the dubious nature of the science, the fact that you feel self-righteous enough to pry into the private behavior of consenting adults bothers me. Of course, I’ll point out your altered standards when it involves sodomy or procreation. It seems that the only personal freedom progressives really believe in is sexual freedom involving non-traditional practices.
Rick, keep in mind here that the subject being addressed is second hand smoke. If it took 40 years of research to prove that cigarette smoking caused cancer (not just correlation, but causes), then we really have no clue whether second hand smoke causes anything, especially not on the basis of flawed statistical standards.
Think about it. It fails the most basic test of legislation; establishing a need. And hundreds of former workers at bars have paid the price for legislation enacted without demonstrating a need.
That’s simply bad government, period.
Bike Bubba
“If it took 40 years of research to prove that cigarette smoking caused cancer”. Statements like these show why you people can not be considered a responsible party to governing.
“And hundreds of former workers at bars have paid the price”
Again. Who? Where? Name the St. Paul restaurants sitting vacant because of the smoking ban.
Rick, perhaps you ought to check your own logic. If it is difficult to prove causality with a relative risk of 40, as smoking has for lung cancer, then how much more difficulty are you going to have proving causality for a relative risk of 2 or less? Most studies that try to link secondhand smoke to lung cancer have failed to find a statistically significant correlation, let alone causation.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100318,00.html
Reality is that establishing medical correlation is difficult, causation is darned near impossible. However, before you make public policy, maybe, just maybe, one ought to do the work first.
And people paying the price? Well, not more than 150 yards from where I sit now, there is a vacant bar in Bloomington that was thriving until the smoking ban was enacted. Those who were regulars noted that the ban was associated with a huge downturn in business.
Dozens of people out of work, Rick, from that one alone. Sometimes, you’ve got to understand that reckless legislation can and does hurt people. This was one such case.
RickDFL should change his moniker to RickDGGEM, where DGGEM stands for the Democrat Gay Government Environmentalist Minorities party. they certainly don’t represent farmers & working people anymore.
In fact rather than take their orders from farmers & working folk they want to tell them what to do while they take their money.
Bike Bubba:
Think you could find someone not on the Tobacco payroll?
“Although she couldn’t comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001.”
Bars and Restaurants come and go all of the time. Who knows what is going on with your bar in Bloomington? Given that we are heading into a recession you would expect lots of closures. But there is no evidence of large numbers of closures due to the smoking ban.
Bars and Restaurants come and go all of the time.
Yes, but back when the economy was fairly well humming along, Minneapolis instituted a ban, and bar revenues dropped. The pace of bar closings picked up. One friend of mine, proprietor of a mid-scale bar in Minneapolis, reported that before the ban, his business had been growing around 8% a year. After, it dropped 15%. There were no other variables. It was the ban, and nothing but the ban.
Mitch:
Or maybe your buddy is a bad bar owner. Looking around the internets, I can not find anyone with a study or evidence that bar/rest closing are up sharply or revenues are off more than we would expect in a downturn. It would be fairly easy for opponents to produce such evidence, so the lack is telling.
Rick, whether or not Mr. Milloy is on “Big Tobacco’s Payroll” doesn’t change the fact that most studies do not in fact find a correlation between secondhand smoke and anything, nor does it change the fact that the EPA did in fact change statistical criteria to put its finger on the scales.
Really, all you’re doing is a spiffy looking ad hominem fallacy. Reality is that smoking bans can and do affect businesses where smokers are found, and there are any number of pieces of data which indicate that, yes, this logic holds.
Now if you want to talk about sources bought off, let’s talk about the billions paid to climatologists for global warming research, not tens of thousands to Steve Milloy!
“there are any number of pieces of data which indicate that”
It would help if you linked to them. They fact that you don’t gives me a pretty good idea that that do not exist.
Rick, if you remember to read other comments on this post, you will find your way to those points of reference. It’s not as if others haven’t been pointing these things out, you’re just choosing to ignore them.
You and Mitch each cite one place, one that the owner says business is off and yours which is “vacant” which could be shut down or just kinda empty at that particular time. That is your evidence of the great smoking ban bloodbath. Yet you say it took 40 years to prove smoking causes cancer. You are a joke.
You and Mitch each cite one place, one that the owner says business is off
And you “cite” the observation that you haven’t noticed any fewer bars.
And no, Rick, you obtuse little fellow, there IS more evidence than that. I’m trying to find a study that was released about two years ago that showed neighborhood bars were failing at an accelerating rate in Minneapolis and Saint Paul, but holding steady to slightly increasing in the burbs. It seems to have gotten lost in the change to WordPress.
But suffice to say, Rick, that as usual you are wrong, whether anyone bothers to prove it to your pointillistic satisfaction or not.