Bans increase business???

[gary k]

The numbers below are only a ballpark figure; but,I feel that they are close enough to reality to be reasonably accurate.

Antis say that eventually smoking bans are good for businesses and in a way that may show up in the numbers.

But,that might not tell the whole story.

Consider an area with 100 bars and restaurants,each having $100,000 worth of business,total $10,000,000.

About 50(50%) of these places will probably be fast food and chain operations that are already non-smoking, total business $5 million,leaving $5 million for the remaining 50 businesses.
(NOTE: There are a lot of McDonalds,Pizza Huts,and non-smoking restaurants in any area!!)

These 50 will be the small bars and smaller restaurants and some chain restaurants.

If only 5 go out of business(5% of the total) due to a loss of customers due to a smoking ban,that leaves 45 businesses sharing $5 million worth of business,or about $111,000 per business,an 11% increase.

Tax receipts for all of the 95 businesses would show an average 5.25% increase.

If smokers were 50% of the lost business and stayed home,instead of going out, the increases for the remaining businesses would still be about 5.5% and about 2%.

Smoking bans might be claimed to increase income for those remaining businesses.

That would be damned little consolation to the owners that lost their businesses and to the workers that lost their jobs and income!!!!
The antis never want to talk about the losses to bingo parlors and casinos!!

If they do,the antis blame declines on the economy,as if folks are going to stop paying 25 cents,or whatever, on a bingo card because of the economical decline.

[gary k]

Antis claim that smoking and SHS exposure cause low birthweight babies.

To show cause and effect you must have a direct correlation.
A = B
More A = More B
Less A = Less B.

You can not show cause and effect with an inverse correlation.
Less A = More B
Common sense tells us that.

Over the last 40+ years the smoking rate for women has gone down about 50% and SHS exposure has gone down over 75%.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censussta ... thrate.htm

Among other significant findings included:

The percent of low birthweight babies (infants born weighing less than 2,500 grams) increased to 7.8 percent, up from 7.7 percent in 2001 and the highest level in more than 30 years.

[gary k]

Another anti talking/debating point:

Antis claim that smoking and exposure to SHS causes SIDS deaths.

Surgeon General’s Report-2006
Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions,page 8

Overall, Cal/EPA estimated about of 430 SIDS annual excess deaths due to maternal smoking and SHS exposure.

SIDS deaths in the U.S.= 2,247 in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_inf ... h_syndrome

430 is 19% of 2,247

About 68.5% of mothers either smoked or were exposed to SHS.

According to the antis that 68.5% of mothers were the cause of only 19% of the SIDS deaths.

Thus;according to the 2006 SG's Report and the anti-smokers, 81% of the SIDS deaths occurred in the 31.5% of the households where the mothers did not smoke and were not exposed to SHS.

Clearly, maternal smoking and exposure to SHS can not be a cause of SIDS deaths, to say that it is,is a cruel,malicious lie.

This just proves that antis will stoop to any level to blame smoking for any and all deaths!!!


About 50% of females are exposed to SHS, this would include pregnant women and mothers of newborn babies.
http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_de ... id=712&mid

About 18.5% of females smoke,this would include pregnant women and mothers of newborn babies.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statist ... able_2.htm

[gary k]

More about the 2006 SG's Report.

Antis claim that smoking and exposure to SHS causes SIDS deaths and they use the 2006 SG's Report as proof.

This report gives two totally different sets of numbers.

The linking of SIDS deaths to SHS exposure is crap and just a foul attempt to push the antis' agenda!!

SIDS deaths in the U.S.= 2,247 in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_inf ... h_syndrome

Surgeon General’s Report-2006
Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions,page 8

Overall, Cal/EPA estimated about 430 SIDS annual excess deaths due to maternal smoking and SHS exposure.

From the SG-2006 Report, page 194:

"On the basis of the epidemiologic risk data, researchers have estimated that the population attrib­utable risk of SIDS associated with postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke is about 10 percent (Cal/EPA 2005)."

So, what is Population attributable risk?

Definition: Population attributable risk is the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared with its current (actual) exposure pattern.

(Source: Rothman K (1998). Modern Epidemiology, 2nd Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.)

...............
SG's Report(CAL/EPA) also says that SHS exposure causes 430 excess SIDS deaths.

430 is 19% of the 2,247 SIDS deaths.

The population attrib­utable risk of SIDS associated with postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke is about 10 percent (Cal/EPA 2005)

10% of 2,247 is 225 SIDS deaths.

Sooo,which is the true number, 225 or 430???

Either number is just a guess at association and not a reason for assigning 'CAUSALITY'.

These numbers are just another example of antis trying to scare smokers into quitting.

Using dead babies to push an agenda is slimy ,vicious, and malicious!!

Maternal smoking is the largest cause of babies exposure to SHS.

Mothers are not spread out across all age groups.
As we see here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005074.html
97% of the 4,140,000 births are to mothers from 15 - 39 years of age.

I include the 15-19 group because that is 10% of the total and is too large to ignore.

About 25% of the females in these age groups smoke.
That 25% would account for about 1,035,000 births.

The population attrib­utable risk of SIDS associated with postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke is about 10 percent (Cal/EPA 2005)

10% of 2,247 is 225 SIDS deaths.

1,035,000 births to smoking mothers divided by 225 = 1 SIDS death per 4,600 births to mothers that smoke.

A smoking mother would find that the odds against her baby being a SIDS death are 4,599 to 1!!!

A SIDS death causes great mental and emotional trauma and anguish.

To state that 1 death per 4,600 births proves causality is an indication of how low antis will stoop to further their agenda.

May God have mercy on them, I certainly will not!!

[gary k]

Sooo,which is the true number, 225 or 430???
.......................
The leftist anti-smoker scumbags are so blind as to what they say!!

They blame smokers for the deaths of their babies because smoking might, may be,possibly is associated with that death.

They call them preventable deaths.

At the same time, most of them will say that it is alright and perfectly acceptable for mother to have the right to abort(KILL) a baby.

A baby born to a smoking mother has only a 1 in 4,600 chance of being a SIDS baby.

An aborted(KILLED) baby has a 100% chance of being dead!!!

Abortions are preventable deaths and 93% of abortions(murders) are because the baby would be "INCONVENIENT"!!

That is about 1,125,300 deaths,every year, because the baby would have been "INCONVENIENT"!!

That is 22.5 times the,claimed, preventable deaths due to SHS exposure.

Non-smokers can choose not to be exposed to SHS.

An aborted(killed) baby has 'NO CHOICE".

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
July 2008

INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
• In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed.
From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.
(NOTE: That is 41,850,000 babies killed because they were "INCONVENIENT"!!)


http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
UNITED STATES

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

[gary k]

Many thanks to Dave Kuneman for this.

You just might want to ask an anti about this and then have a

Happy New Year Folks!!

Reference Guide on Epidemiology, Michael D. Green, D. Mical Freedman & Leon Gordis
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/looku ... iman06.pdf

Page 384
When the relative risk reaches 2.0, the agent is responsible for an equal number of cases of disease as all other background causes.

Thus, a relative risk of 2.0 implies a 50% likelihood that an exposed individual’s disease was caused by the agent.
....................................................
An RR of 1.5 implies that there is a 66.7% chance a disease was caused by other background causes and only a 33.3% chance it was caused by the agent.(1 is 2/3rds of 1.5)

SG's 2006 Report states that the RR for heart disease/lung cancer due to SHS exposure is 1.2 to 1.3(average RR= 1.25).

Thus, if a nonsmoker is exposed to SHS and gets heart disease/lung cancer there is only a 20% chance the heart disease/lung cancer can be attributed to SHS and an 80% chance the heart disease/lung cancer was caused by other risk factors!!!
( 1 is 80% of 1.25)

Smoking bans would do very darn little to prevent those diseases from happening to non-smoking hospitality workers!!

The 1993 EPA Report gave a RR of 1.19 for lung cancer due to spousal smoking.
The EPA called SHS a cancer causing agent when there is an 84% chance that a spouse's lung cancer is due to other risk factors.

[gary k]

Are these numbers important?
Consider this, most antis claim that there are about 50,000 deaths(mostly heart disease and lung cancer) caused by exposure to SHS.

When the antis make that claim,you can tell them that there is an 80% chance those deaths were caused by something other than SHS!!!!

You can tell the antis that the odds are 4 to 1 AGAINST any of those deaths having been caused by SHS!!!!

[gary k]

Antis claim that smoking bans are absolutely necessary to preserve the health of hospitality workers because SG Carmona said in a press conference that "there is no safe level of exposure to SHS."

However, that is not exactly what his 2006 report said!
The report said:"evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke".

So,just what level of risk is there from exposure to SHS?

The level of risk runs from SLIM(20%) to NONE(almost non-existent)!!!!

The chances that a smoking ban will make a difference in preserving the health of hospitality workers are SLIM TO NONE!!!!!

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke
Page 10, Chapter 1
Specificity, referring to a unique exposure-disease relationship (e.g., the association between thalidomide use during pregnancy and unusual birth defects), can be set aside as not relevant, as all of the health effects considered in this report have causes other than involuntary smoking.

Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions, page 11
Major Conclusions
4. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Page 14, Chapter 1
Respiratory Symptoms and Prevalent Asthma
in School-Age Children
7. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and ever having asthma among children of school age.
( NOTE: The RR for this is 1.23, that means there is an 80% chance it was not caused by parental smoking.)

Childhood Asthma Onset
9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.
(NOTE:Therefore,the level of risk is almost none.)

Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions Pages 15-16

Lung Cancer
2. The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.
(NOTE: RR1.25 shows that there is an 80% chance a non-smokers lung cancer was caused by risk factors other than SHS exposure.)

Chapter 8. Cardiovascular Diseases from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
2. Pooled relative risks from meta-analyses indicate a 25 to 30 percent increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke.
(NOTE: RR1.25 shows that there is an 80% chance a non-smokers heart disease was caused by risk factors other than SHS exposure.)

3. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

4. Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis(hardening of the arteries).
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

Chapter 9. Respiratory Effects in Adults from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
3. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to conclude that persons with nasal allergies or a history of respiratory illnesses are more susceptible to developing nasal irritation from secondhand smoke exposure.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

Respiratory Symptoms
4. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

5. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

6. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

Lung Function
7. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

8. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between chronic second-hand smoke exposure and a small decrement in lung function in the general population.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

10. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and an accelerated decline in lung function.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

Asthma
11. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and adult-onset asthma(asthma attack).
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

12. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease(Emphysema and other stuff)
13. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

14. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and morbidity(symptoms) in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
(NOTE: Risk level is almost non-existent.)

[gary k]

Antis claim that studies show that smoking bans do not cause a drop in total hospitality sales tax revenue.

Comparing sales tax revenues from year to year can be very mis-leading due to inflation,price increases,or tax rates.

Add in the fact that are population increases, the fact that ‘total hospitality’ sales taxes include all of the fast food places that already had banned smoking(there are more opening every year) and you can have a number of places go out of business or lose a great deal of business and still have an increased or at least stable ‘total sales tax’ numbers.

One must be aware of what numbers do NOT tell you.

Sales tax rates on liquor sales are much higher for alcohol than for food. A place could go from food/drink to drink only and have less business(income) while paying the same amount of sales tax.

Sales taxes do NOT give any indication of what happens to the servers’ income;remember,smoking bans are for their welfare.

There is never a ‘level playing field’ when comparing the cost of going out with the cost of dining or drinking at home!!

For instance:
2 meals at $15 per meal = $30
4 glasses(a bottle) of wine at $5 per glass= $20

Food and drink = $50
20% tip = $10

Total= $60

Same meals as take out = $30
Bottle of wine at store= $10

Total for home = $40

I have saved 50% of what I spent and I do not have to leave the wife sitting alone(MAJOR NO-NO!!!) while I have a smoke.

The business may not lose much;but,consider the servers.

2 such losses a night is $20 in tips per night, 5 shifts per week is $100 per week.

50 work weeks per year = $5,000 lost wages per year.

Smoking bans are for the health of the servers.

The mental and emotional trauma involved in losing $5,000 of one’s salary is not going to be very ‘healthy’!!

The mental and emotional trauma involved in losing ALL of one’s salary because of being laid off is going to be very,very ‘unhealthy’!!

Antis never want to talk about these possibilities!!

[LightningBoy]

This is absolutely correct.
TOTAL SALES TAX numbers are not representative of the reality.

In Ohio, the Ban was passed in November 2006.
It was due to go into effect on December 6, 2006, but was blocked by injunction when the hospitality trade associations filed suit because there were no rules formulated for enforcement.
Official enforcement did not begin until May 3rd, 2007.

Speaking only from FIRST HAND experience, we saw a steady decline in sales through December 31, 2007.
It became obvious in October that we would have to raise our prices to offset the reduced traffic, but the sales tax figures for 2007 included the 4 months that we did not "self-police" so we actually show a small gain for 2007 even though we had less traffic.
"Smoke Free Ohio" was quick to point to 2007 as "proof" of no harm.

We did raise prices across the board on every item on the menu on January 1, 2008, ...as well as reduce our staff by one waitperson.

Again, it was a slow steady decline throughout all of 2008.
We have since reduced the staff by another waitperson, and we have been postponing another price increase for as long as possible.
Any loss in business for the first half of 2008, I attribute exclusively to the Smoking Ban.
The second Half is a combination of the Ban first and foremost, and the economy in flames a distant second. (The menu is very competitivly priced)
Not only is the restaurant making less money, it now employs two fewer people with Mrs. Lightning taking up the slack.

Anybody want to buy a restaurant?

[gary k]

The reason for smoking bans is because the antis are jealous of smokers.

Smokers will outlive them!!

Here is why:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/98.025.PDF

The average age of death from all causes was 71.1
years, while the average age of death for those
persons killed in motor vehicle crashes was 39.7
years.

For instance,in Arizona in 2001:
http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/report/ahs/ah ... 68_169.pdf

The average age of Arizonans who died in 2001 was 71.2 years.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf
R E G U L A T I O N • V O L . 2 1 , N O . 4 , 1 9 9 8
LIES, DAMNEDLIES,& 400,000
SMOKING-RELATEDDEATHS

by Robert A . Levy and Rosalind B . Marimont

"Most revealing of all, almost 255,000 of the smoking-related
deaths—nearly 60 percent of the total—occurred at age
seventy or above."

The average age of death for smokers is about 72.

[gary k]

These numbers are from 1998.

The average age of death from all causes was 71.1
years.

The average age of death for smokers is about 72.

Anti smokers say that smoking is the leading cause of preventable,pre-mature death!!

Three questions that MUST be asked:
(You will love watching the average anti stammer on these!! )

1)Can you prove that any smoker's death was caused solely by smoking???

2) If smokers did not smoke,at just what average age would they die??

Instead of 72,would that average age be, perhaps 80, or would that average age be 71.1, just like everyone else!!

3)The average life expectancy at birth for a 72 year old person(born about 1936) was about 62 years.

HOW can you call their death pre-mature,when they have already lived about 10 years past their average life expectancy at birth??

[gary k]

The antis answer to #1 will be about everyone knowing or science proving that smoking kills.

Then you ask about the average age of death for non-smokers and for smokers.

Most antis will not have a clue as to those ages and away you go!!

Have Fun!!

You might also note that the 72 years of age includes non-smokers exposed to SHS/ETS and that, by denying themselves exposure to SHS/ETS, they are dooming themselves to an early grave!!

[gary k]

Anti smokers claim that smoking is the single largest cause of preventable deaths.

In an absolute sense,death is not 'preventable', we all are going to die.

The question that concerns most of us is whether our death will be at a younger age or at an older age.

As posted above,the average of death for smokers is about 72 years and the average age of death for everyone is about 71.1 years.

If you have 100 people with an average age at death of 71 years and 20 of them(smokers) have an average at death of 72 years, what is the average age at death of the other 80(nonsmokers)?

Common sense tells us that age is not going to be above or equal to 71 years of age.

The answer is 70.75 years of age!!!

Sooo;if you eliminate smoking,the average age of death will be slightly YOUNGER!!!

The antis that want smoking bans and no one smoking so that they do not have to smell SHS/ETS will be paying a nasty price for achieving their goal!!

[gary k]

Lung Cancer nonsense(LIES).

Antis claim that smokers account for 90% of the lung cancer deaths each year and that smokers have 10 times the risk for lung cancer as compared to nonsmokers.

There are about 160,000 lung cancer deaths(LCD) per year.

The 1993 EPA Report states that a nonsmokers risk of LCD is 1/10,000 per year.
(225 million adults,20% smokers=180 million nonsmokers,1 LCD/10,000=18,000 nonsmoker LCD)

A smokers risk would be 10/10,000 or 1/1,000.

The antis say that there are 45 million smokers in the USA, LCD rate of 1/1,000 equals 45,000 LCD for smokers.

45,000(smokers) plus 18,000(nonsmokers) equals only 63,000 LCD!!
What happened to the other 97,000 LCD's????

If smokers had 20 times the risk as nonsmokers, there would still be 52,000 LCD's that are not accounted for!!!!

Exsmokers are included with the nonsmokers;otherwise,why quit?