Bar owners blame the smoking bans enacted in Kansas City, Missouri, and its suburbs for ruining their business and for starting World War I. (Gavrilo Princip saw a future where Serbian-Americans couldn't light up in midtown bars, so he shot the archduke of Austria.) But a study of communities in Minnesota finds that removing the ashtrays has a negligible effect on employment.
Researchers at Ohio State University and the University of Minnesota used state job data to track bar and restaurant workers over a 45-month period. Cities with comprehensive smoking bans saw a decrease of 9 workers per 10,000 residents when compared to cities with partial bans. But communities with any prohibition in place (full or partial) gained 3 workers per 10,000 residents compared to places with no bans.
Emily Klein, one of the authors, says the lack of a significant economic effect "should give us more support for maintaining the most beneficial public health policies."
Important caveat: A nonprofit group dedicated to "reducing tobacco's harm" funded the study.
Showing 1-10 of 10
That "small percentage of the population" is more than 1 out of every 5 Americans. I can understand being nauseated by smoke, but you simply have to go to one of the many places where smoking is prohibited. You have many, many more choices than the average smoker does, which is probably how it should be. If you choose to sit on a patio or go somewhere smoking is allowed, suck it up.
I don't need any studies to tell me that having someone smoke a cigarette next to me makes me feel nauseous. Last night I went out to eat with my girlfriend and I couldn't finish my meal because of the chainsmoker who was behind me. Why should such a small percentage of the population be able to dictate what the rest of us will breathe? Should I be forced to eat at home if I want to breathe clean air?
Here's Klein's weak letter she sent back to Senator Seitz. She REFUSES to extract the bar data and report it separately and she says she CANNOT give the data to the Senator to run independent numbers. http://opponentsofohiobans.com...
And here's the press release that was done by Opponents of Ohio Bans on her so-called study. http://www.reuters.com/article...
There's real danger in distorting science for a political agenda. The danger is in the total lack of trust in "science". But, when you get funding from the non profits set up by the pharmaceutical company who has a monopoly on the gum, lozenges and patches, how honest is "science" going to be when it depends on getting more of the almighty dollar? I say put ETS on trial. Use the Judicial Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd Edition, and you'll see most of these so-called studies wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
While Klein was locked up in her Ivory Tower, a number of longstanding bars in Columbus closed under her nose.
She must have never left her Stanton Glantz scriptures long enough to look out the window, let alone across the street.
One of the bars, Larry's had been open since Prohibition.
How "fitting" for it to close with the next wave OF prohibition.
Zoning did not allow this business to spend thousands of dollars to build the necessary patio to keep their heads above the water of the draconian smoking ban.
Indeed, smoking bans do not harm business....
An imperative five figure remodeling job for the private business owner...built in HOPES to stay open.....and "no business losses from bans" parroted by the antis hypnotically concurrently.
Almost makes the Stepford Wives seem human, frankly.
Seems to me I heard somewhere that Klein did her study BEFORE the smoking ban even went into effect! Now WHY would anyone use that falsification as a reference! There is no credibility here. In fact, there's a list online of 327 documented closings in the Minneapolis area alone, including their last VFW! Veterans, who fought for America, have their rights stripped. For what? A nanny nation. Pathetic.
Surprise, surprise The entire anti-smoking movement was funded by Big Pharma so why is it a big surprise that they would come up with a bogus study.
http://banthebanwisconsin.word...
I guess the real surprise is that anyone would give credance to tobacco control activist with no credentials in economics. Since the so called Kline study is about Minnesota I think it is fair to bring up the study that the state did on charitable gambling. Here is an article about it by WCCO on the subject.
http://wcco.com/topstories/cha...
The study done by the state clearly showed a 20% drop in revenue. To a business that averages a 14% profit, a 20% loss of business is devastating. Including every bar in the Mall of America.
http://cleanairquality.blogspo...
But I guess honesty is totally beyond tobacco control. This is not about health, it is about government mandated behavior modification.
http://www.slate.com/id/222838...
The Klein study has been shown to be flawed and biased. It's time to stop referring to it as proof of anything.
Funny thing about the Klein study, anything but the truth. See the letter to her from an Ohio Senator
http://opponentsofohiobans.com...
The Klein study has been debunked over and over again. It is however, no surprise that anti-smokers continue to use it to further their cause.
http://tinyurl.com/rcnz44
like
dislike
