Talk:Smoking ban/Archive 1

"Assumption of Risk"
The point about assumption of risk in common law countries should not be in this entry. "Assumption of a risk" as a complete and general defense to tort liability has been abolished by almost every common law jurisdiction. To suggest that it has some kind of legal bearing in the argument over smoking bans is misleading.

It does have legal bearing. Jury Nullification. --Kvuo 05:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Victimless" term
Since it affects others the health of others, smoking cannot be "victimless crime". Bogdan | Talk 08:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree, and consider those who argue for its victimless "wrong" but I don't think it's NPOV to suggest it is or is not victimless in the text. Either statement is, to some extent (i.e. one is wrong, they aren't both right), a point of view. zoney &#09827; talk 09:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Smoking is only a victimless "crime" when those exposed to secondhand smoke have no choice in the matter, i.e., children of smokers. My opinion, anyway. -Lukobe 20:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That would clearly be a crime that does have victims! The kids are suffering at the smoker's hands with no recourse. zoney &#09827; talk 23:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. What I meant to say is smoking is a victimless "crime" except when those exposed to secondhand smoke have no choice in the matter, i.e., children of smokers. --Lukobe 23:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's of course wider than that. For instance, if somebody chooses to smoke in your train compartment and the train is choke full, you have no choice. David.Monniaux 19:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * And Ireland's ban is a ban on smoking in workplaces, as non-smoking workers would otherwise be subjected to passive-smoking with no resort. I have no time for the nay-sayers of such a ban. zoney &#09827; talk 19:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Re trains, of course you're right, which is why places like that are rightfully smoke-free. (I should have used "e.g." instead of "i.e." As for "bans on smoking in workplaces," I am all for those except when the workplace is a bar. Workers know exactly what they're getting into when they take a job at a smoking establishment. --Lukobe 20:33, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I always notice private property right concerns are conveniently never addressed in these sorts of conversations. Nor that public businesses are still privately owned, in which the workers and customers can choose not to patronize said location if they don't like their surroundings.
 * Private property concerns are an irrelevant argument, and somewhat of a straw man, because it rests on the demonstrably false assertion that what is done on one persons property doesn't affect another persons property. This is demonstrably false - come to my house any day in the summer, if I open my windows my neighbor's smoking will stink up my house in a rather quick hurry and proceed to make my fiancee and I ill (assuming they have their windows open too, which happens often).  Private property does not have private air supply - when they pollute their air with ETS they're polluting their neighbor's air as well  Lordkazan 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * regarding Lukobe's comment, I accept that people know what they're getting into, but if someone can't get a job anywhere else it's hardly an option not to work. Plus I'm fairly certain there are ramifications with the Job Seekers Allowance (at least in the UK) if one turns down a job--Thomas 18:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then the answer is simple - change the regulations to allow people to turn down jobs in establishments that permit smoking, if they choose to, without loss of benefits. If the owner of the establishment has a severe problem in obtaining staff, then he will probably impose a smoking ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.87.215 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 July 2006


 * Isn't the point rather than no one should be exposed to unnecessary health hazards in the course of doing a job? In addition, there are always people desperate enough to work to risk their health for a job, and allowing them to do so is effectively simply pushing the problems of passive smoking down onto the most disadvantaged members of society - a group who already suffer disproportionately from the primary effects. Nmg20 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

what about the right of the indiviual? What about the smoker's right? 2005, 6th January
 * Everyone goes on about the smokers rights, but I rarely hear people taking about non-smokers rights, which seeing as in the UK we make up three quarters of the pouplation, it's harldy fair, especially as non-smoking areas are often just a small corner in a pub, usually with inferior furniture- and just as smoky as the smoking areas (as smoke can't read the "non smoking area" signs, even if the smokers can (though they often ignore them too)). I'm glad the UK is bringing in a smoking ban, but 2008 is too far away, and it's not complete enough. The Scots have the right idea, banning it totally, and by next May. Maybe Tony Blair will look to the sucess in Ireland, and the hopeful success in Scotland and change his mind.James2001 14:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe the reason you don't hear about non smokers rights is because no one is trying to pass a law forcing places to allow smoking. If you do not like the fact that a certain pub allows smoking let your money do the talking. If you think a completely non-smoking pub would be well accepted by the public then open one to rival the smoking pub. No one is saying that there should not be non-smoking facilities, just that smokers should be allowed refuge as well. Let 'em smoke them selves to death. If you only go to establishments that do not allow smoking then you won't be bothered in the least. let the people choosing jobs worry about where they work or since we are in the mood to make laws, make one saying that only non-smokers can work at non-smoking establishments. But to tell one group of people that they aren't allowed to have a club/pub where they can smoke while they drink is no worse than telling a non-smoker that they have to go to a pub where people smoke. What's next sitations for purchasing tobacco? Bans on smoking in a tobacco shop? Laws preventing persons from smoking in their homes on odd days of the week. We is you right infringing on mine and vice versa. Why can't we agree to not go to the same places? Heterosexuals can't go to a gay pub and not expect to see gays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.247.166 (talk • contribs) 21:02, January 30, 2006

Ever use the BA lounge at Heathrow? They have a smoker's area which is completely physically segregated by glass partitions. There is absolutely NO smell of smoke outside of this area, despite the fact that when I was last there, about 10 people were puffing away inside. If the proposed law had offered a choice of installing this kind of partitioning, OR making your premesis smoke-free, then I would probably support it. As it stands, the legislation being proposed comes across far less as a method of improving health, and far more as an ideological "I don't like people who smoke" type of thing, designed to gain support of people (probably the majority) who want to try to make everyone like, and do, what they do. For my part, when the new legislation comes into force, I will simply stop using pubs. No, not a hysterical reaction - I don't agree with the measures, therefore I shall not frequent the establishments it applies to. And guess what.... I don't smoke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.87.215 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 July 2006

Yes yes yes. The question is not "will a smoking ban be beneficial to the health of the public?" but rather, "does the government have the right to impose a smoking ban on private establishments?", from which the discussion can be turned to philosophical grounds, i.e. "what kinds of laws can governments rightfully pass?" or, "what kinds of laws is a specific liberal, constitutional government allowed by its constitution to pass?"

Claiming that smoking is victimless is completely and totally bunk and i have prepended "supposedly" to the statement "no adults are subjected to smoke without their consent." because i know FOR A FACT from person expirience that I am exposed to it in the list of ways I posted following that sentance - I have attempted to use NPOV language and not cite personal expirience in correcting this POV issue. 65.125.133.211 21:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * some...claim to be able to smell a smoker simply walking down the sidewalk, driving down the road, sitting in their own home with the windows open, or having to walk past them on their way into a store ... some WHO? Besides, if you're victimized by merely having to smell the stuff in passing, well, then... --Lukobe 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that it's POV, and so good work in removing it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is the truth POV? hey lukobe you can take your attitude and stick it - because the threshold of toxicity is WAAAAY below the threshold of sensory perception for ETS - perhaps if you did some research 65.125.133.211 12:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have readded my attempt to correct the POV problem in that section - I'm very open to debate on the wording, but without a counterargument to the bare (and demonstrably false) assertion that "no adults are subjected to it without their consent" it is a POV violation in favor of those assholes who chose to poison others (hey, i don't have to stay NPOV on the comments page :P) - I know from PERSONAL F*****G EXPIRIENCE that adults are exposed without their consent.  I cannot have my windows open in the summer because my neighbors smoke and it comes into my windows.  I cannot drive down the road without smelling people in front of me smoking.  I cannot walk down the sidewalk without smelling people smoking.  I cannot walk into a store without smelling people smoking - and remember, as I reminded you before (and shouldn't have to) the threshold of sensory perception for ETS is well above the threshold of toxicity [especially since the threshold of toxicity is ANY exposure since ETS contains non-threshold toxicants and carcinogens] 65.125.133.211 12:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to ban all cars, lorries, vans and busses as well? I think you'll find they put out more toxic substances than someone else's cigarette. Go and find someone else to shove your stupid thick control freak views down, brainless twat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.87.215 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 July 2006


 * You're simply wrong - please see the section on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Particulate Matter Emission in Passive smoking for details.Nmg20 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I still need to find a source on it, but I have long understood that the toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke disperse quicker than the smell, so someone in a nonsmoking section can be poisoned by the odorless chemicals without smelling the smoke. They also linger and settle on everything, making it take hours after the odors has dissipated before the chemicals are gone. Smokeresearcher 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's amazing that come people can blindly accept a ban on smoking in PRIVATE bars and pubs, citing non-proven health issues from politically and financially motivated junk science reports, and then turn around and chug an alcoholic beverage in which the health effects have been well documented...but i also am i smoker and promote it.

I have to in some ways agree with both sides about the smoking ban because some people do submit thmselves to such things as being around smokers but others cannot help the situation they are in. For instance if you are in a resteraunt who is stupid enough to believe that having smokers on one side of the room will stop others from breathing in the smoke then it is your fault that you are being submitted to the smoke because you chose to eat there so its your own fault and you have no right to coplain, but if you have to go somewhere and there is no way to avoid it it isnt your fault

Irregardless of how you feel about the language, it does act as an argument that opponents of smoking bans use. If you can find an argument (or set of arguments against the language "victimless crime" regarding smoking, PLEASE add them to the article for balance, but I would suggest that the claim stays. Neutrality would best be preserved by providing both sides of the argument, not just the "victimless" perspective. 71.9.1.138 18:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Information not entirely correct:
I was reading through Wikipedia and stumbled upon the smoking-ban (this) page and it struck me that the date of the Ireland ban (somewhere in march 2004 or so) is later than the "first of january, 2004" date that dutch law presented, this year.

According to a press-release on the "www.stivoro.nl" site, the "Tabaks wet" (tabacco-law) of july 2002, specifies that from the 1st of Jan, 2004, "all workers are entitled to a smoke-free working environment". This, in practice, has turned out to also include establishments such as bars, restaurants, etc.

On http://www.stivoro.nl/werkplek.html one can find info about the tabacco-law changes; in dutch, however.

A ban on smoking in public places has been enacted some date before 2004; though i'm not sure when exactly.

Also, note that certain locations are exempted; specifically:

- Publically accessible areas of Hotels/Restaurants/Cafes - Publically accessible areas of disco/dance/etc-facilities - Publically accessible areas of (video) arcade-halls - Publically accessible areas of tabacco-shops - Some international transport - areas for which an employer cannot be responsible - private areas, open areas and specially constructed areas (smoke-'boxes')

Anyone here who could verify that above information would indeed mean that Ireland is actually not the first ?


 * To quote this at the BBC news:
 * "A Dutch law bans smoking in public places including railway stations, trains, toilets and offices. But hotels, bars and restaurants there have won a temporary reprieve until 2005."
 * The key thing is that Ireland were the first to ban "smoking in all work places", ie. without exception. violet/riga (t) 17:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not completely accurate, there are some exemptions in the Irish ban, prisons, mental institutions and hotel bedrooms are not included (anon)
 * Not that I know for sure but I'd say that those are exempt because they are places of residence. violet/riga (t) 10:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whether it is liked is not the issue. The issue is that lies, and scare tactics - to the abhorant level of using children to promote the propoganda, to promote an agendad of personal control.

Want references ? sure. Enstrom & Kabat paper, published in British Medical Journal (Vol. 326, Issue 7398, May 2003) which was provided in another thread by Ivan. The paper states that the links between second-hand smoke and heart disease/cancer may be much weaker than is generally stated. A sidebar to the article says “In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure.

Then try this one. There is the much talked about WHO/IARC report (AKA 'the suppressed report') published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Vol. 90, No. 19, Oct. 1988). This report states that exposure to second-hand smoke outside the home or workplace is not a lung cancer risk, childhood exposure to tobacco smoke is not a lung cancer risk, and that there is only a weak link between lung cancer risks and exposure to home or workplace second-hand tobacco smoke. It also says that there is a statistically insignificant increased cancer risk when exposed to both household and workplace second-hand smoke.

OR this one. A paper dealing with cancer mortality and flight attendants from 1960-1997 and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 156, No. 6, Sept. 2002) found decreased levels of cancer and heart disease mortality despite exposure to workplace second-hand smoke.

And then this one. Paper in International Journal of Cancer (Vol. 83, Issue 5, Nov. 1995) dealing with Adenocarcinoma shows a weak effect on cancer causation by second-hand smoke and a decreased risk of cancer among those exposed to second-hand smoke while children.

Minimal - DECREASED risk ............. This is NOT a health issue. It's a freedom issue.

Now look at the primary culprit of FIRST hand smoke - the last 40 years, there has been a decline in smokers, to the tune of 30% about 10 MILLION people, yet heart disease, and cancer has RISEN during this same time by over 20%. Cause and effect ? Not a shot. Now think of the decrease in passive smoke. 10 million less smokers HAS to mean less passive smoke - band in workplaces, governemnt building etc - all in the last 10 to 20 years means less passive smoke - why does the disease rate not go down ? TJLuvs28 23:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple - other causes have increased faster than that cause has decreased Lordkazan 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * further, as to heart disease, worldwide diet has deteriorated so greatly as to promote increases in this disease. as to lung cancer, the rate actually has started to decline {per capita), but arent you also aware of the 20 year lag curve, a publication from a few yrs back showing the lung cancer rate tracks perfectly on the number of smokers with an almost perfect 20 year lag? Anlace 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that lung cancer is by no means the only risk associated with smoking or with second-hand smoke. So those papers are not enough in themselves. TRiG 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A few comments on this. Enstrom & Kabat.
 * By their own admission, their Californian research was tobacco-industry funded. That is not to impugn their professional integrity - but I think the involvement of the tobacco industry in any studies of the risks of passive smoking must, given their record of deceit, be taken as significant.
 * Their work in the same paper has been heavily criticised (in the same article linked above) as failing to assess participants who were and were not exposed to smoke during the follow-up, chiefly because those who did not have a spouse who smoked would nonetheless have been exposed to significant tobacco smoke anyway due to the lack of controls on smoking in public places until the 1970s. In addition, their conclusions are based in part on a followup of participants in 1999, when the youngest survivor was 75 and when the survivors as a group were more likely to be educated, to have been disease-free at outset, to have been professionals, etc. Finally, they fail to take any account of participants whose partners gave up smoking, and in a follow-up of that length that's unforgiveable. Their methodology is questionable, in short.
 * The IARC has explicitly refuted Enstrom & Kabat's claims, pointing out that E&K's work is based on 177 cases vs. IARC's 6257. No clinician or statistician in the world would take the former's results over the latter, and I'd suggest nor should we.

I'd urge anyone interested in this issue to read the original article, and the responses to it. The scientific consensus was occasionally overzealous (as the BMJ's editor points out), but ultimately damning.

The "suppressed report"
 * A study published in a publically available journal can hardly be deemed "suppressed". With respect, that sounds like tobacco company propaganda.
 * This commented only on childhood cases of lung cancer related to ETS
 * As you say, it found a link between ETS and lung cancer. What's more, that risk was dose-response. The fact it was "weak" doesn't mean it wasn't there.
 * I believe this is one of the studies included in the IARC's meta-analysis of its own work which I mentioned above which found an overall significantly increased risk from ETS. It is to their credit that they publish even work which does not strongly support their position - and to the discredit of the industry trying to ignore such work that they disregard the meta-analysis in favour of promoting the one study that they want people to know about.

The flight attendants
 * This paper is looking not at ETS in isolation, but as ETS as a component of the risk exposures of flight attendants - in terms of cancer, that set also includes cosmic radiation and sexual promiscuity, to name but two.
 * The conclusion acknowledges "the precision of published SIR and SMR estimates (including ours) is still rather low. It currently seems premature to conclude that cabin crews have an overall cancer risk which is materially different from that of the general population, since this cohort is very young and further follow-up is needed."
 * With respect, it's highly misleading if you've read the paper to suggest it's commenting on possible links between ETS and cardiovascular disease. I quote: "The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women). This is a clear indication of a healthy worker effect, wherein selection for employment and ongoing monitoring lead to a very low prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk factors such as obesity and hypertension." You will note the absence of any comment on ETS in that paragraph, and the attribution of the finding to another cause entirely.
 * The study does not factor in whether the participants smoked themselves: "Unfortunately, the company files did not contain any information on health-related factors.", making it impossible to conduct a meaningful analysis of ETS exposure as distinct from direct smoke exposure.
 * The meta-analysis of which this study is a part reaffirms these points: "The young age of the cohort members makes it difficult to study age-dependent health effects such as cancer", "The cohort studies show a very high healthy-worker effect", etc.
 * Studies looking at occupational subgroups are only tangentially relevant to the question of whether ETS causes health problems in the general population.

I am unable to find your final paper, but again, smaller-than-expected is still more people with disease and more people dying because of exposure.

Your comments about the decrease in smoking and the concomitant increases in associated disease have been dealt with well by other users. I'd add to that the thought that it might indicate that the required exposure to ETS is small - and sure enough, recent studies have begun to show exactly this.

In conclusion, there is no debate here. Exposure to cigarette smoke causes disease, and it kills, and no amount of bluster and deception by the tobacco companies should be allowed to mask that fact.

Nmg20 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

BBC News resource
"Smokers in retreat" is an excellent article by BBC News with information about lots of anti-smoking strategies around the world. violet/riga (t) 19:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Smoking is also banned in all restaurants and municipal buildings in Norway. The law was implemented by a minister of health from the christian democratic party, after Ireland's model. Because the minister in question is widely percieved as a moralist, the law was fiercely criticized in the press*. Despite this, it had popular support before it's introduction, and it's popularity has increased after it came into effect, even among smokers.

Vintermann 11:00, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Norwegian journalists smoke more than the average population, and "Tostrupkjelleren", the Oslo pub where you have to be a journalist to gain entrance, was one of the first with an attempted circumvention of the law; I don't know how it went.

Picture Removed--why?
I had put a picture (that I had taken) in under "outdoor bans" with a sign demonstrating an outdoor smoking-ban policy. Why was this removed? If no one objects I will put the picture back, as I feel it provides a useful visual to back up the textual information in this article. Svenska84 08:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The most prominent part of that picture - easiest to read and most central - is about dogs; the part of the sign about smoking is more subtle and can barely be read. I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think it works - one shouldn't have to read the caption to realize the relevance of the picture. --Blogjack 23:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think a picture of a smoking sign by itself would be an asset, but this picture is really about dogs. —Cleared as filed. 05:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good point--it is a tall sign and unfortunately the relevant parts are on the top :( Maybe I can crop the dog part out of the picture or try and somehow take the picture again emphasizing the higher parts. I appreciate your comments. Svenska84 09:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Enactment dates have passed
There are two enactment dates in the Outdoor ban section that have been passed and whose grammer is still future tense. Someone needs to followup and see if the bans are currently in place. Grika 15:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-directs from No smoking and Non-smoking
I just created re-directs from these terms after seeing it linked in MGM Grand Las Vegas, but this article appears to be only about government bans on smoking. Should this article be expanded to cover voluntary restrictions on smoking by businesses as well as government-imposed bans, or should another article be created that deals directly with voluntary bans (and what should it be called)? --Tysto 22:26, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Turkey?
I see Turkey is on the list of Countries that have a public place smoking ban. I went on holiday to Turkey in May, and it seems to me that there isn't even a phrase for "No Smoking" in Turkish, seeing as smoking was allowed anywhere and everywhere. I had to walk out of the Welcome meeting because the smoke made me feel ill. The only place that had a Non-Smoking area was the airport terminal, and that was pretty poor. Oh yes, and a non-smoking area in the dining hall at the hotel, which was even more of a joke. Not that I didn't enjoy the holiday though, but I find smoky places unpleasant. The notion on whoever wrote this page that Turkey has smoking restrictions is a joke! Still England isn't much better at the moment, though hopefully that will have changed by 2008. James2001 19:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Australian ban not quite accurate
I think the ban in Australia is different on a state-by-state basis. Can anyone confirm the details? Shermozle 12:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - I modified the Australian section yesterday to reflect this. Cheers, --Daveb 01:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Where's Singapore?
Of all countries, I would've thought Singapore was one of the first to ban smoking indoors... Plus an insane tax that pushes cigarette prices over S$10/= per hard pack (20s). Ever smoked a 50-cent Malboro? Some kind soul ought to put the Singaporean facts up! We wanna see comparisons...Alveolate 01:40, 28 October 2005 (GMT +08:00)

Austrian situation
In Austria smoking is forbidden in any public buildings (like schools, universities, government buildings,...) but I couldn't find in which law/act that was established. Also it is forbidden to smoke in the Vienna underground, but both laws are not really strictly enforced. the ministry of health is thinking about tougher regulations but so far no real law has been passed. 
 * Austria has been called a 'developing country' in terms of protecting nonsmokers rights (see german wikipedia). Even inside the University of Vienna main building smoking is common, though offically banned, same applies for underground passages. Restaurants and bars traditionally do not even have a non-smoking section. There is a 'voluntarily' agreement now between the health department and the chamber of commerce that 90% of restaurants larger than 75 sqm should provide at least 40% space for non-smokers until the end of 2006 (smaller businesses than 75 sqm can continue to allow smoking everywhere), but so far restaurants owners are reluctant to fulfil the agreement. Despite its weak character (no obligations, no real separation, exceptions for smaller venues and all bars), this has been model for a similar German agreement. Same as Austria Germany can be called a stronghold of resistance against smoking bans, at least in the hospitality business. The only hope is that the smokefree trend in other European countries will finally also reach Germany and Austria. --80.121.102.160 02:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No kidding, I live in Germany. An attempt to require no-smoking sections in restaurants was defeated in 1998, and little has been done since. Even schools have smoking areas — for the pupils. ProhibitOnions 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization
I'd like to see this page reorganized, in particular the list of places with bans.

I propose the follwing layout, with all places alphabetized inside each category:


 * Indoor smoking bans
 * Country 1
 * Provice A
 * Municipality of a provice A
 * Country 2
 * State X
 * State Y
 * City in state Y
 * State Z
 * Outdoor smoking bans
 * By placename? Not enough entries to warrent hierarchy as above.
 * Other bans
 * Again, listed by alpahetical place name.

If no one raises any objections, I'll do this in a few days. Ocicat 20:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * -Finished reorg. Ocicat 22:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ventilation not Legislation" blog link
This link called "Ventilation not Legilation" keeps being added to this page, not only to the links, but it keeps being psoted within the article too. No matter how many times it's deleted, it keeps getting put back by this person. It's really starting to get rediculous now, can't one of the moderators do something about it?James2001 20:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised that a page on smoking bans doesn't have any information about the latest studies that demonstrate - as any one who had any scientific education already knew (diffusion et al) - that passive smoke causing health problems is a hoax. But a lovely hoax I quess.


 * Care to cite a reference? Ocicat 18:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And whether there is health problems or not, it's damn unpleasant anyway. I'd like to go out to pubs more, but the atmosphere is so unpleasant, I just stay away. Seperate areas do nothing, and ventilation is even more of a farce- I haven't used a "ventilated" bar that's been less smoky than one without ventilation. In fact, the place I used which had recently been fitted with brand new state of the art ventilation was the most smoky pub I've ever been in to (and yes, it was switched on). So I really don't know why people are going round claiming ventilation is the answer- it isn't.James2001 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's unpleasant IN YOUR OPINION, yes. IN YOUR OPINION. I don't know if anyone ever told you, but just because YOU find something unpleasant, that doesn't mean everyone else should find it unpleasant as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.87.215 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 July 2006


 * From now on the user will be blocked from editing if he continues to add the link to his own blog. Please don't use Wikipedia to promote your blog. Rhobite 21:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thoughobviously, it's not just him. I always read news reports of bar owners claiming that ventilation is the answer to all our problems, even though it isn't. They are just scared of losing customers if they ban smoking. Though most people I know would go out to these places much more if it was banned- and that includes smokers. People in the tobbacco industry also claim ventilation is the answer, though there's financial reasons for that- they know if smoking is banned them profits go down.James2001 11:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, we should acknowledge that many people oppose smoking bans, based on personal freedoms or on a belief that secondhand smoke isn't harmful enough to justify a ban. We already talk about the former in the "opposition" section, but we don't discuss the latter. I'm not sure how many people still think that secondhand smoke is safe, but if it's a significant number we should describe their views. However we shouldn't use the blog as a source - it's just some guy's blog. Rhobite 15:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactally, and I personally wouldn't be suprised to find this person has some sort of interest, probabally financial, in ventilation systems, or allowing smoking to continue in public, hence thepersistant posting of the blog link (and a dubious quote from therein). Obviously, if there are any offical links about ventilation and opposition to smoking bans, they can (and should) be posted to allow both sides of the argument to be shown, but a blog is just someone's personal opinion. On a related note, I found this link today which shows even several manufactuers of ventilation equipment, and Phillip Morris, admit that they are innefective http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=267James2001 17:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter (at least this one) is that the companies cannot be certian that the air purification systems were sized correctly for the cubic feet of the room they were installed in, the height they are installed at, the shape and specifics of the room, how often the filters or collection grid are replaced or cleaned, how often the system is turned off, or a number of other factors. There is no way a company would say for sure that their system prevents health risks caused by ETS, in fact they would (and do) outright disclaim it, even if it were absolutly TRUE.  This report and the presented argument are akin to saying that consumer electronics should be removed from the market because they have a sticker that says "Risk of electric shock - Do not open case."  The legal disclaimers and warnings on ANY product or service offered are there as a means of limiting the liability of the company offering them.


 * Furthermore quotes such as: 'While not shown to address the health effects of secondhand smoke, ventilation can help improve the air quality..." mean nothing when the most reputable scientific research organisations cannot publish a paper directly linking ETS to cancer with a margin of error that represents anything statistically significant. It is hard to "address the health effects" of something that has not been linked to specific health effects.  This entire mess of scientific research is so open-ended and complex that anyone can exclude a few hundred test subjects or ignore a few thousand variables to make their report look the way their money wants it to.  --Cliffordwagner 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is why the medical research is better-regarded than that funded by the tobacco companies, isn't it? Medical research is independently funded, and so their money doesn't want to make it look any particular way - it just has to be scientific. It's also just not correct to say that margins of error in scientific papers haven't been statistically significant - they have. Sasco et al (2004 - reference 7 in the main article) is a meta-analysis which concluded: "A meta-analysis of over 50 studies on involuntary smoking among never smokers showed a consistent and statistically significant association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk." (my emphasis). There are three more meta-analyses (19, 20, and 21) in the passive smoking article which reinforce that. Nmg20 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * a meta-analysis is not a study. Cliffordwagner 12:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A meta-analysis most certainly is a study. I don't know whether you have a background in research or not (your profile suggests the latter; apologies if you do already know this), but a meta-analysis can be regarded as a study of studies, designed to reveal trends across a variety of samples. They also fulfil all the criteria I mention in my previous post. Nmg20 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue with meta-analysis in the smoking/anti-smoking debate is that it invariably starts out POV. Whichever side publishes it's findings is immediately criticized because it's in 'someone's pocket', no matter what the findings of the report are. That's why only evidence, not surveys, should be used to determine, if any, the actual effects are. Plus, with the inherent bias associated with the all-to-prevalent human response of trying to justify or blame someone or something for one's own problems, a surveyed cancer patient, no matter the source of the illness, is going to look for a convenient scapegoat.

"Responsible adults and freedom" editorial
The last paragraph is obviously from a disgruntled smoker, as it is locked from editing or removal. This is an encyclopedia, not the opinion section of your hometown newspaper. Please delete this paragraph in keeping with an encyclopedia-based format.


 * I had no trouble removing the section in question - Welshy 08:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is liked is not the issue. The issue is that lies, and scare tactics - to the abhorant level of using children to promote the propoganda, to promote an agendad of personal control.

Want references ? sure. Enstrom & Kabat paper, published in British Medical Journal (Vol. 326, Issue 7398, May 2003) which was provided in another thread by Ivan. The paper states that the links between second-hand smoke and heart disease/cancer may be much weaker than is generally stated. A sidebar to the article says “In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure.

Then try this one. There is the much talked about WHO/IARC report (AKA 'the suppressed report') published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Vol. 90, No. 19, Oct. 1988). This report states that exposure to second-hand smoke outside the home or workplace is not a lung cancer risk, childhood exposure to tobacco smoke is not a lung cancer risk, and that there is only a weak link between lung cancer risks and exposure to home or workplace second-hand tobacco smoke. It also says that there is a statistically insignificant increased cancer risk when exposed to both household and workplace second-hand smoke.

OR this one. A paper dealing with cancer mortality and flight attendants from 1960-1997 and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 156, No. 6, Sept. 2002) found decreased levels of cancer and heart disease mortality despite exposure to workplace second-hand smoke.

And then this one. Paper in International Journal of Cancer (Vol. 83, Issue 5, Nov. 1995) dealing with Adenocarcinoma shows a weak effect on cancer causation by second-hand smoke and a decreased risk of cancer among those exposed to second-hand smoke while children.

Minimal - DECREASED risk ............. This is NOT a health issue. It's a freedom issue.

Now look at the primary culprit of FIRST hand smoke - the last 40 years, there has been a decline in smokers, to the tune of 30% about 10 MILLION people, yet heart disease, and cancer has RISEN during this same time by over 20%. Cause and effect ? Not a shot. Now think of the decrease in passive smoke. 10 million less smokers HAS to mean less passive smoke - band in workplaces, governemnt building etc - all in the last 10 to 20 years means less passive smoke - why does the disease rate not go down ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJLuvs28 (talk • contribs)


 * You should add this to the body of the article (rewritten in an encyclopedia style of course). --Lukobe 05:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Scotland England unbiased
There seems to be a huge amount on all the intricacies of the English legislation, yet nothing whatsoever (except the actual fact) about Scotland which has already brought in a no-smoking ban which takes effect next month. Anyone able to fix that? Satan&#39;s Rubber Duck 14:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Per NPOV Policy:

 * Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better.

I am not convinced that the opposing arguments in this article are fairly represented. I'm assuming that the debate on smoking bans is at least legitimate, unlike, for example, a debate on the factuality of Darwinian evolution. But when I read the Opposition section, it reads like a refutation of arguments rather than a fair representation of them. For example: "The principle of 'assumption of risk' must be overcome." Meaning, what? That the notion that bar patrons are aware of passive smoke is an insufficient argument against a ban? That the logic is inherently fallacious? If this section is built on presenting arguments just so they can be refuted, it is not NPOV.


 * I took that to mean "in order for the patron to avoid liability the principle of 'assumption of risk' must be overcome. " with "overcome" used in a legal sense. I think it really means "it was hoped that you could avoid being sued in America by"..   However, the logic is inherently flawed since I think most of the passive smoking cases have been settled based on the person having had no choice of location, not on having no knowledge of risk.  Mozzerati 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would propose providing separate, point-by-point arguments in favor of and in opposition to smoking bans. If the arguments in favor are the more popular, say so. If the arguments against are unconvincing, it should be apparent in the details. I have no problem with "mutual evaluations," e.g. "Supporters of bans believe that the principal of 'assumption of risk' is misguided," but I don't like the idea of the arguments against being swallowed up—it's an "engagement of debate" that violates NPOV. Where mere misconceptions exist, cite sources to verify them. For example, to counter the argument that bans hurt businesses, it reads that "the bans become accepted over time [...] by most smokers." (That comment, btw, should be prefaced with "Anti-smokers contend that...") A citation of a poll or survey of smokers' opinions would be helpful in this case—but this counter-argument, like the others, should be separated to prevent the appearance of an engaged debate. -- Pas tri  cide!   Non-absorbing 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely the article could do with a major rewrite and has real "POV" problems, but separating too much tends to lead to unreadability and separate sections developing apart from each other. I think it's better to focus on particular areas and give the particular sides of the debate within each.  Incidentally, note that we're using loaded terms (Anti-smokers / clean air advocates / etc.).  Some care will be needed to get this right.  Mozzerati 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you. This article is biased PRO smoking bans as it currently stands. --Lukobe 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article does indeed have real "POV" problems, and I also consider it to be biased PRO smoking bans as well. Twang


 * Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding on assumption of risk. I don't want unreadability either, but where debate exists the arguments have to be discrete, with labels stating which side believes what.


 * And btw, that "anti-smoker" ref was a slip on my part. Obviously, I didn't mean to imply that ban supporters are against smokers themselves—they're against smoking, or at least against having smoke in their faces. It's difficult to categorize groups with unloaded terms, but "ban supporters" and "ban opponents" might be the best way to do it. -- Pas tri  cide!   Non-absorbing 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

list proposal
how about a quick listing of places where smoking is not regulated? france? amsterdam? Spencerk 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, it almost seems like it would be the shorter list. Las Vegas: probably the last bastion of free tobacco use. --Kvuo 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving the List of Regional Bans
The list of smoking bans is unwieldy. It should be moved to List of smoking bans or removed entirely. Dave 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed completely. I actually stumbled on this comment while looking to see if others were thinking the same way.  Good call!  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and forked the content. List of smoking bans is now an active article.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the list was long, but I think that moving it out of the article on bans will make it tougher for people to find that list. I strongly suspect that more people come to the "Smoking Bans" article looking for info. in that list, than come to the article looking for discussions on the history of such bans, or the debate about such bans, or even the medical basis of such bans. As such, I think that the List belongs in the article on bans, even if it was a long list. Peter-F on  2-21-06


 * Reflecting the majority view in this discussion, I've now moved all the material in this section, leaving links to the relevant lists.

"chemicals"
Why, in several parts of this article is the phony scare-term "chemical" used? A reason for an outside smoking ban is that cigarette butts leak unwanted "chemicals" into the environment? Tobacco is a plant. It didn't grow magically.

I also notice the phrase "tobacco toxin".. Tobacco contains no toxins. Poisons maybe, but not toxins

--Kvuo 01:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The chemicals in tobacco smoke are toxins. Inject a vial of nicotine and you will die. Inject a vial of tar and you will die. Inhale a cylinder of carbon monoxide and you will die. They're toxins. --Evan C (Talk) 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not. The definition of a toxin is: "A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins." Just because something is capable of causing injury that does NOT make it a toxin. As the above poster says, substances like carbon monoxide are poisonous to humans, but they are not "toxins". If you're going to comment on something vaguely scientific then at least attempt to use the correct terminology, otherwise you come across as rather foolish, much like the bulk of anti-smoking campaigners, who are just about scientific enough to be able to spell "test tube". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.87.215 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 July 2006


 * Definition of a toxin:
 * toxin
 * 1. A toxic or poisonous substance.
 * 2. A colloidal poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism, and is notably toxic when introduced into living tissue.
 * So you've picked and chosen the definition that suits you. I'd suggest that's pretty unscientific in and of itself, notwithstanding that your point is semantic rather than scientific anyway. Nmg20 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So you've picked and chosen the definition that suits you. I'd suggest that's pretty unscientific in and of itself, notwithstanding that your point is semantic rather than scientific anyway. Nmg20 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You know who hated smoking? NAZIS.
The facts are there, but this seems a bit... hysterical, in both the hair-pulling screaming sense and the hilarious sense. I just removed the paranoid opening to "Large, well-funded anti-smoking groups..." because, well, small, underfunded anti-smoking groups ALSO oppose smoking.

In a broad general sense, making the Nazis the second group to oppose smoking... again, it reeks of POV. I'm wondering what the reaction would be if I altered the "tobacco smoking" page to include the high percentage of smokers among racists and pedophiles in the second paragraph. I'm pulling the example out of my butt to make a point, but you see what I mean. Edit: forgot to sign! Sorry! --MattShepherd 19:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. The anti-smoking thing, along with anti-drugs, was a facet of the Nazis' belief, and they were openly against it. Even if there was a high percentage of smokers amongst racists and pedophiles, this is not analogous to the case of the Nazis. There isn't some sort of central organisation of racists and pedophiles (The Racist and Pedophile Club UK Ltd) who have come up with a policy of "liking smoking" that all their members should adhere to, is there?! The fact of the matter is that the Nazis WERE anti-smoking, its not POV, it is a known fact. You're the one suggesting that this fact in some way means that anti-smoking campaginers are acting like Nazis. Well, if the hat fits..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.87.215 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 July 2006

2-21-06: Matt, I agree that the Nazi references reek of POV. Many pro-smoking groups compare anti-smoking groups to Nazi's; the internet is loaded with examples of that. How do we add neutrality for this issue? Even within the "History" section, there is LOTS of text dedicated to Hitler/Nazi's being anti-smoking, but I am not inclined to outright cut it since much of it is apparently historical fact. But it should be put into context somehow, noting that there is a POV reason for pro-smoking groups spending lots of time/text making talking about Hitler and anti-smoking efforts. Perhaps the answer is to mark those as "weasel" comments and refer the readers here to the Discussion page? Or refer the reader to the "Debate about smoking bans" section?? -Peter


 * generally concur with peter...there is simply too much length to the nazi discussion...at a minimum it should be shortened and add remarks as peter indicates, Anlace 23:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * SMOKING SHOULD BE BAN, THERE. THE REASON IS AND IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IT KILLS!!!!!!!


 * Yes, thank you for your impromptu appearance, anonymous; I think I speak for the rest of us here by saying that it was a cutting statement also. But alas, this is a web site that does not favour any opinion or "side" of an argument.  If you want to put forward an agenda, please move to another site.  We just try to report the facts here.

Thanks - Welshy 01:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This whole Nazi quote should be deleted. Nobody here so far has brought forth any argument while the personal habit of Asolf Hitler has any significance on smoking bans. As the paragraph says, the Nazis didn't enforce a ban, so where is the connection to the topic at hand? This whole part of the article looks like POV. I'm very much for deleting it. Nobody is speaking for it, so why not simply get rid of it? 81.14.152.197 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * support deletion as proposed above by 81.14.152.197 Anlace 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha. Anything that joins up the dots between Health Nazis and their historical forefathers must be removed. Mixino1 18:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. Did you know there's been a Dilbert cartoon about you? Nmg20 19:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the HISTORY section is that it implies there are just two historical smoking bans, the Pope Urban and the Nazis, when in fact there have been numerous smking bans passed and repealed over the years. For example this site lists 20 or so bans. I am suggesting a re-write of this section to include a more accurate review of the history of smoking bans. I'll wait for comments and then maybe I'll post something in a few days.

Any discussion of the failure of smoking bans would be "off message"--i.e. not contributing to the propaganda effort to make smoking bans not only inevitable, but also irreversible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.0.242 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you come onto the talk page accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being interested in "propaganda", and making wild and unsourced claims that smoking bans have been a "failure" as if that's fact, then with respect other editors are unlikely to engage with you. I certainly won't unless you look like contributing something positive to the article. Nmg20 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words
Browsing the Wikipedia sub-site (so to speak), I came upon this, and thought this article fit it perfectly.

There are too many ambiguous quantifiers etc., that have slipped into this article, and I think it needs to be rectified.

Anyone agree? - Welshy 01:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. :) --Gmaxwell 02:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Deweaseling complete. (Changed "Some people say" and other indefinete language into "One claim is that...") I have left the template alone and will let the community decide if it's sufficient enough. If so, then you're welcome. 71.9.1.138 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the only section to have this heading is the one dealing with criticisms of these bans?? It seems to me these entries are far from neutral and this site has been claimed by antismoking zealots. The slant is that bans are a good thing (and that's a stone-hard FACT) and anyone who thinks otherwise, well, that's only an opinion. If you want to be just another mainstream propaganda source, fine by me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.0.242 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think 71.9.1.138's edits of 11th October have deweaseled it sufficiently to take the tag off - so I will. I'll also say that what seems to you to be the case and what you think are not per se important to the article - what's important is what you contribute to it and how you do so. Contribute well-thought out, well-referenced information: don't 'contribute' brazenly POV, accusatory rubbish. Or at least, that's my recommendation. Nmg20 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tradable permits
I reverted the last edit on this, which added a much lengthier response to the single sentence of criticism of this rather fanciful idea, which AFAIK has no actual currency in policy circles (a Google search for "tradable smoking permits" gives 5 hits). The whole section is POV/original research and should probably be eliminated altogether or cut to a para with an external link. JQ 05:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation added April 29, 2006, showing currency in policy circles. It's an op-ed from Profs. Robert Haveman and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin-Madison: http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/madison.com/html/archive_files/wsj/2005/09/25/0509240280.php


 * Thanks. I've deleted the POV editorialising in favor of the idea, which was just a general statement of the advantages of permit trading systems, with the standard examples cut out and smoking pasted in. That should be covered by the link to emissions trading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs).

I think perhaps an editor has mistaken the above satire about the trabable polution credits as a serious proposal. Jon 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wtf
What the hell is wrong with the world, this is the type of shit that pisses me off. People need to stop being little cry-baby pussies. Its really sad, im liberal when it comes to many things, but smoking bans are just ridiculous. 71.75.175.146 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) "Liberal" comes from the Latin word for freedom, so liberals should actually be against bans (at least total ones) becasue they unreasonalby restrict freedom.
 * However, that is beyond the scope of this article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not beyond the scope of it, put it under criticism. Skinnyweed 09:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, bloody likely. I wasn't aware that 71.75.175.146 was a citeable person... ;p &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This IP Address (71.75.175.146) has a history of vandalism, including reverts of corrected vandalism. See his/her talk page for details. --Alexbrewer 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Critique of bans cleanup
This whole section needs clarity and reformatting and a lot of POV language and links removed, though I don't have the time to do it. G'luck. Desertsky85450 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What a disaster of an article this has turned into... --Lukobe 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it is a disaster. I'm glad someone put the rewrite tag in there.  It needs it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

=>The edits I made on 8 and 10 July are not POV edits, as Shuminweb claims. (Though I'm of course willing to listen to an argument that they are) The latest report on second-hand smoke from the Surgeon General did not include any new research. It was simply a pronouncement on existing studies. I'll find the AP newsource for this. I believe this fact, that there was nothing new in the report, was also reported in the New York Times. I've also included reference to two high-profile people, Joe Jackson and Christopher Hitchens, who have suggested motivation other than health (yes I know that there is a nod, in the article as it stands, toward aesthetic considerations for banning smoking but this could be fleshed out) for those who have banned and who wish to continue to ban smoking in public or indoors. -- Squidlow. 10 July 2006 03:11 EST

Rewrite attempted
I've had a go at a rewrite - comments appreciated. After an initial rush of blood to the head, I tried to label each edit so that individual changes can be assessed independently. I flatter myself to think it reads significantly better now, but it certainly still needs work. Nmg20 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted a series of changes putting back a lot of the stuff I took out. I'll try to explain why I did so here.
 * The CDC was the original source of claims that 3000 people per year die from secondhand smoke. However, it has been discovered that RWJF as well as the Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson Company both contributed funding to the Foundation for the CDC, therefore any subsequent "studies" can be assured to be tainted by special interests.

This is close to meaningless. The claim that the CDC originally provided the 3000 people figure is unreferenced, there's no explanation of who or what RWJF is, and the citation here is an industry player. In addition, I don't think opinion sites like this are valid references for a scientific article: all they serve to do is to rile up both sides, so the article turns into a tubthumping competition.


 * The American Cancer Society' conducted air quality testing of secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants, which actually proved that secondhand smoke concentrations are up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke.

Not in a respected scientific journal they didn't, in addition to which "safer" does not equal "safe". And again - who or what are the OSHA?


 * Ventilation not Legislation A government Environmental Health Department proved ventilation methods rendered secondhand smoke up to 500 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke.Ventilation not Legislation

Ditto.


 * The case against smoking bans is easily won'. The Case Against Smoking Ban Laws

This article is not scientific, is opinion, and opinion from a site which is clearly biased. In addition, is it really sensible given the depth of feeling and emotional investment of both sides to claim that the case is "easily won" either way? It pretty self-evidently ain't easily won...


 * The detrimental effects of a smoking ban are best exmplified by the recent bans in Minneapolis and St. Paul One year after the smoking ban 76 bars and restaurants closed their doors for good, the year prior when there was no ban on 15 bars and restaurants failed. Twin cities hospitality businesses closed due to smoking bans

Nationwide bar & restaurant financial damages due to smoking bans.

This information is still in the article in section 7.2, "Effects on businesses". However, the references are again inappropriate - how impartial are we expecting a site called "www.smokersclubinc.com" to be, really?

I hope you'll discuss the changes here before reverting again. Nmg20 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Critique of bans
This entire section covers (very badly) issues that belongs in Passive smoking and is dealt with much better there. The only material that can actually be regarded as criticising a ban, rather than criticising the scientific consensus on the dangers passive smoking is the last three subsections and the first sentence. This section should cover political criticism of smoking bans, and should not focus on 15-year old disputes in the US which had no direct implications, since the EPA does not regulate smoking AFAIK. JQ 10:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this section is poor. It does deserve to exist, in that anything as controversial as this particular subject should have such a section.  Plus the section is missing perhaps the most important criticism, which is that those bans (not all of them just what are today a few extreme cases) are not demonstrably grounded in the objective of improving indoor air quality for those that will be exposed to the air long-term.  Criticism of particular bans that do nothing to address this problem often question the motivations of ban proponents, and that should be noted.  I would also like to see the psychology section expanded to include an analysis of the more radical among ban proponents and their psychological drivers and motivations, with due note that not all ban proponents are radical.  Finally, though nobody should take issue with the fact that bans are effective in improving indoor air quality, another criticism I see raised, and drawn back to a question of motivations, is that ban advocates seem to have little interest in finding policies that clean up the rest of the junk in the air, e.g. VOCs.  (As an aside, on the whole I must say the article is in better shape than what I was dreading I would find here, considering the flame wars I see on this subject.) (71.233.165.69 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

3RR
User:68.112.142.209 - please note policy WP:3RR prohibiting 3 reversions in a 24 hour period. Also check policy on original research and requirements for proper citation of sources. JQ 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

History not complete
It's not surprising that the history section has 1 glaring ommission: The fact that the first comprehensive city/country wide ban was introduced in the 1940's in Germany. Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker, much like those today who are emulating the Nazi propaganda machine to restrict freedom and control others.


 * See discussion above on this JQ 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the History section of this article should be moved toward the bottom (if not into a seperate page)? With all of the smoking ban issues rising, won't people look to see what good/bad comes from it rather than by whom/when the first bans were? Smokeresearcher 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a separate page would be good, and a move is justified in the interim JQ 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I guess it should be done. I'm not too sure on how to do this so I'll leave that up to someone else. By the way, someone needs to check on restaurants and bars that are actually affected (or not). I understand the worst effect was no impact on business, but they usually have increased revenue. I haven't found a specific source on this yet and am a bit busy... Smokeresearcher 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite notice deleted
I deleted the rewrite notice. I think recent edits have removed a lot of the problems that gave rise to this. JQ 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Smoking bans by country
I think this section should be removed and merged into List of smoking bans. The section is incomplete, and the article is already too long JQ 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

World Health Organisation doesn't hire smokers
The World Health Organisation (WHO) which has its headquarters in Geneva (Switzerland) has decided recently (a couple of years ago - 2004 or 2005 maybe) not to hire smokers anymore. I think that that is a very important development that could deserve a paragraph in this article. Banning smoking outdoors is described here as a major step in the tobacco ban, but not hiring smokers seems to be a step that takes us in a total different dimension. Does anyone know if this has been done anywhere else in the world? The above comment was added at 15:55, 11 October 2006 by User:158.232.86.133. Four tildes, thusly: ~ will sign your name!


 * That's an interesting suggestion. I can find no evidence to support it on the WHO website, though - can you provide a reference to back the claim up? Thanks. Nmg20 23:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here it goes: Policy on Non-Recruitment of Smokers Smokers and other tobacco users will not be recruited by WHO as and from 1 December 2005. This policy should be seen in the context of the Organization's credibility in promoting the principle of a tobacco-free environment. The above comment was added at 09:28, 13 October 2006 by User:158.232.86.221. Four tildes, thusly: ~ will sign your name!


 * Wow. Thank you. You can see why they're doing it - but wow. I'd say that merits a place in the article, certainly. Nmg20 10:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention of Hitler being the first leader to enact a smoking ban in Nazi Germany. --67.93.11.66 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC) That would put the true face on those who want bans, and they wish to hide behind the mask of benevolence. That would seem to include whoever is in charge of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.0.242 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this article completely and totally biased?
I'm not sure how fairly this represents the issue, when you put arguments against "in quotes" and silly things like that. You would make your point better by being completely fair and let the facts speak for themselves. I'm not sure how this came to be written completely by the anti-smokers. If that is going to continue to be the case, could you at least try to be a little more fair?
 * 1st learn to sign your posts - second the article isn't biased, reality is. There is absolutely not a single compelling pro-smoking counterargument that has good citations - so we cannot put them in.  The weight of reality is 100% against smoking, therefore the article is as well.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of reality. Lordkazan 13:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be a jerk about it Lordkazan, he makes a good point, and so do you. If you just present the evidence, as you say, it goes 100% against smoking. Let people decide for themselves. But you have to present both sides. We all know smoking is bad for you, but there are pleanty of resources on the internet arguing the stupidity of public smoking bans, saying that the government should have no say in it, or if people don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke then they should work in a bar or go to a bowling alley, or that studies on second hand smoke are flawed for various reasons. You don't need to find "compelling pro-smoking counterarguments," because this article is not about the health affects of smoking, but smoking bans. --Ultramontane 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just you, it is completely biased. These people have an agenda and they're not about to give anyone opposing equal time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.0.242 (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have lots of agendas, just like everyone else. One is only to respond to people who make some effort to post constructively: alas, I'm really bad at sticking to it. Nmg20 (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit
User:Lukobe has added a copyedit tag, but the article seems OK to me, except that it's too long. Some more detailed suggestions would be helpful.JQ 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"side stream" claim can't be right
I would suggest someone remove the line "several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke because passive smokers do not gain the benefit of the filter." This makes no sense, as second hand smoke is being exhaled by someone who already breathed through a filter. The smoke coming off of the end of a cigarette is also just as much inhaled by the smoker, so either way this statement is wrong. If anyone agrees, remove the quote. I just don't want to do it unilaterally. --Ultramontane 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While that makes sense on first glance, you're misunderstanding how sidestream smoke comes about. The problem is not the smoke which has already been inhaled by the smoker and then exhaled - they've already sucked most of the toxins down into their lungs where (unfortunately for the smoker) they stick. The problem is twofold: firstly, the smoke that comes from the burning end of the cigarette, and secondly, the smoke which escapes from the sides of the filter. The tobacco companies introduced filters as a way of making cigarettes which could be shown, using machines which "smoked" them, to provide lower levels of inhaled carcinogens. This was (inevitably?) not designed with smokers' health in mind, but rather to be able to put "very low tar" on the packet and so sell more cigarettes.
 * The catch is this: the filter doesn't actually block many toxins. Rather, they work because they have several holes or "vents" punched into the sides of the cigarette - so the toxins aren't inhaled, they just head straight out into the atmosphere. This is devious for two reasons: firstly, at a time when research was (understandably) focussed on smoker's health rather than passive smoking, it let the tobacco companies sound virtuous. Secondly, they knew their research didn't apply to real-life. Why? Because their machines didn't have to hold the cigarettes in the normal way. When a smoker holds a cigarette, their fingers sit over the filter - meaning that many of the vents are blocked, and much of the benefit to them is lost, so they're sucking down just as many toxins as before.
 * Clever bastards, the tobacco companies. There are a number of relevant papers here, most recently Kozlowski LT, O'Connor RJ, Giovino GA, Whetzel CA, Pauly J, Cummings KM. Maximum yields might improve public health--if filter vents were banned: a lesson from the history of vented filters. Tob Control. 2006 Jun;15(3):262-6. . I'd be happy for this to make it into the article somehow, I'd just struggle to write it impartially, and don't want to sound too strident about it. Nmg20 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nmg20, if you want to modify the expression of the result from a research paper, you should read the paper in question, and not someone else's paper. Refering to the paper by Schick and Glantz resolves the question rapidly and shows that the reference to filter is incorrect. Indeed, the biological experiments they describe had as their goal to compare sidestream smoke with mainstream smoke. For that purpose, the comparison was made between strictly identical quantities of smoke of each type. The authors concluded that the research had shown that "sidestream condensate is 2–6 times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate. By inhalation, whole fresh sidestream smoke is 2–6 times more toxic per gram TPM than mainstream smoke, depending on the end point." The experiments used unfiltered cigarettes. So the result had nothing to do with filter. Actually, if filtered cigarettes had been used instead, the results might have exhibited a much greater difference, as is stated by Schick and Glantz:


 * The cigarette used in these studies, the University of Kentucky 2R1 standard reference cigarette, is a high tar, unfiltered cigarette designed to model the cigarettes popular within the 1950s. The advantages of the 2R1 cigarette are that it does not change over time or from market to market. There is evidence that the sidestream smoke from the filtered ‘‘light’’ cigarettes that now constitute the majority of market is significantly more toxic, per gram and per cigarette, than that from ‘‘full-flavor’’ cigarettes similar to the 2R1.


 * Using the results from the Kozlowski at al. paper to propose an interpretation of the results by Schick and Glantz is perhaps of some interest (?), but this is original work, and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia.
 * Dessources 09:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dessources-
 * (1) Thank you for suggesting I refer to Schick and Glantz . Oddly, given that |I was the one who added the reference (in my edit at 22:54 on 15th July), I have already read it, although I'm pleased you now have also.


 * (2) Nowhere, as you claim, have I "modif[ied] the expression of the result from a research paper". The only place I have referenced Schick & Glantz is in my original edit of the article, where I said "several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke" - which is precisely the point you are now parroting back at me in your comment above. I didn't reference Schick & Glantz in my explanation of the importance of filter vents above, nor in the message I left on your talk page - so kindly explain where I have done so, or withdraw your accusation.


 * (3) I agree that Schick & Glantz's paper is comparing mainstream to sidestream smoke, and I further agree that the cigarettes used in the Philip Morris research they're reviewing were unfiltered. However, their comment which you cite ("There is evidence that the sidestream smoke from the filtered ‘‘light’’ cigarettes that now constitute the majority of market is significantly more toxic, per gram and per cigarette, than that from ‘‘full-flavor’’ cigarettes similar to the 2R1") supports Kozlowski et al's comments about the increased danger of sidestream smoke from filtered cigarettes! Filtered cigarettes giving off more toxic sidestream smoke than filtered cigarettes is entirely consistent with filters meaning less toxins are inhaled by the smoker, and more escape through the vents - much as I explained above. The conclusion of the authors Schick and Glantz are referencing in your quotation (Chortyk OT, Chamberlain WJ. A study on the mutagenicity of tobacco smoke from low-tar cigarettes. Arch Environ Health. 1990 Jul-Aug;45(4):237-44. ) supports my view: "LTC mainstream smoke may be less hazardous to the LTC smoker, whereas LTC sidestream may emit more mutagenic compounds into environmental tobacco smoke".


 * (4) You don't appear to understand the concept of original research. If you read the wikipedia policy on it, you will see that it is (and I quote) "material that has not been published by a reliable source." Kozlowski et al was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I made this abundantly clear by citing the pubmed reference, so you're wrong to suggest it "has no place in an encyclopedia".


 * Fundamentally, we agree that both direct and passive inhalation of tobacco smoke are dangerous, so I'm baffled as to why you've taken this issue to the point where you feel the need to accuse me of misrepresenting research, particularly when it's research you wouldn't have read had I not added it to the article in the first place. Nmg20 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nmg20-
 * The paper by Schick and Glantz, which I have studied very carefully, long before this discussion started, is very clear. It reports on a laboratory comparison of the biological effect of mainstream smoke (smoke inhaled by the smoker) and sidestream smoke (smoke produced by the burning end of the cigarette) on experimental animals. The two types of smoke were generated with unfiltered cigarettes. The results were unambiguous. Sidestream smoke is, on average, and at equal TPM concentration, four or more times more toxic than mainstream smoke. Or, seen another way, to obtain equivalent toxicity among experimental animals, the concentration of MS-smoke needs to be at least fourfold that of SS-smoke. As this was done entirely without reference to the filter, the result of Schick and Glantz (and of the INBIFO laboratory on which their work was based), shows that sidestream smoke is more toxic than mainstream smoke per se. They could not conclude, and did not conclude, that the difference in toxicity they observed was in part due to the filter, since, at the cost of repeating myself, filtered cigarettes were not used in the experiment.


 * The CalEPA report explains in great detail the difference between SS smoke and MS smoke. Here is one key explanation:


 * "Sidestream smoke is emitted from the burning end of a cigarette between puffs and is produced at generally lower temperatures, with a different airflow compared to mainstream smoke (Guerin et al., 1987). The firecone temperatures are lower for sidestream smoke at 1112 °F (600 °C) (Jenkins et al., 2000). Because the smoldering end requires airflow, a partial vacuum is created in the tobacco column, which acts to drive the flow of air from the filter end through the firecone (Jenkins et al., 2000). Smoldering tobacco with lower temperatures leads to incomplete combustion, which in turn releases more quantity of compounds into the sidestream smoke as compared to mainstream smoke per cigarette (NCI, 1998).' (CalEPA report, III-3)"


 * The report further adds:


 * "Studies indicate that sidestream smoke mass emissions are relatively constant across various cigarette types, including filter, nonfilter, full flavor or low tar cigarettes (U.S. EPA, 1992; Jenkins et al., 2000; Lodovici et al., 2004; Leaderer and Hammond, 1991)."


 * Therefore, I would persist in thinking that the remark attributing, even partly, to the filter the difference in toxicity between SS smoke and MS smoke be removed. Dessources 13:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Debate
Just to say that, while I agree with User:Dessources that "The scientific debate is now closed - see final opinion in USA vs Philip Morris et al. which shows that the "controversy" emanated essentially from a racketeering plot staged by the tobacco industry)", I also agree with User:70.73.37.146 that the line stating that the issue is still debated should stay in. Nmg20 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"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" Unless the shops and restaurants are owned by the government they are private not public.--Soliscjw 02:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pubs are public houses. Private clubs are private clubs because you have to be a member and cannot walk in off the street, as you can in a pub. 195.157.52.65 13:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not public unless they are owned by a Government other wise they are private property like your home.--Soliscjw 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POV?
I'm kind of wondering if the victimless crmie section is a bit pov. I mean it sounds like we on WP are saying it's a bad argument, but really we should say something like, "Supporters counter that ... (insert cite here)" - maybe I'm being picky here, but if someone else could take a look at it that'd be great.DanielFolsom T|C|U 03:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree that it is a pov and I agree that it is a victimless crime --Soliscjw 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear from the article as it stands that this is the presentation of one particular side of the argument - the section title itself is in inverted commas ("victimless crime"), making it clear this is a term used only by those making the argument and that it is not therefore fact. This is reinforced by the opening words of the section being "It is argued that...". Further, the content of the section sets out argument and counterargument in a reasonably ordered fashion - at no point is one side given the ascendancy, in my opinion, and at no point does it stray into POV except in the final paragraph ("Victims are also created..."), which I think needs (a) rewriting in a neutral manner and (b) referencing. I don't disagree with the sentiments - but some of the evidence needs to go in to support the information about smoking and young people and smoking in the third world.


 * Finally, can I just reiterate that our personal opinions on whether or not it is a victimless crime are not relevant to what goes into the article? The section we're talking about is outlining a more or less philosophical argument, and as such needs to do so whichever side of the divide we as editors fall on. Nmg20 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The victimless crime section needs work it has a strong pov from people who disagree with the statement. --Soliscjw 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Balancing Effects on Business
I propose an extensive rewrite of the "Effects of Bans on Business" section. This whole section presents only one point of view. As most of the references are newspaper articles, I suggest the addition of any of the numerous articles which attest to economic devastaion resulting from smoking bans.

I also recommend the passage on indoor air pollution in New York be moved to the section on health. Mayor Bloomberg's study has drawn significant criticism, which should also be included, in the interest of balance.

EtaKooramNahSmech 10:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is particularly flawed and bias. There are numerous reports from actual businesses that have lost revenue and many others that are out of business due to smoking bans. Yet no one seems allowed to post that information.


 * You can post it if it meets Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and attribution. The pieces that have been removed have tended to be overtly POV and sourced, if at all, from horribly biased websites. Nmg20 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-filter and imported cigarettes banned in Canada?
Is it true that non-filter cigarettes and imported are entirely banned in Canada (except for select brands like Winston and Camel which apparently are made in Canada)? If true, what happens if someone were to order cigarettes from an online retailer in the States, i.e. would the purchaser receive a fine and penalty from customs? I've also heard that pipe tobacco and cigars are taxed more heavily than cigarettes? I'd appreciate any clarifications on these issues, as I have no knowledge of Canadian law and read these in an article, but it seems very extreme for the Canadian government to impose such severe bans. As a possibly irrelevant side note, I've also heard that Canada bans most American hard liquor except for major international brands like Jack Daniels and Jim Beam White Label. Mark Pellam 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Note this article being vandalised by 207.63.53.9 Silver bow 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we could be getting to the stage with the volume of vandalism where we ask for the article to get semi-protected. All in favour? Nmg20 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed
I removed "The image to the right is a "No Smoking" sign. This is something that is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. We don't say things like "The image to the left, or the image to the right". Those are things that are dependant on the underlying renderer, which could change theoretically causing the article to be incorrect. If you wish to label the image, please use a description tag. 142.55.140.100 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)ahaghsfgfd

ACSH vs. CSPI: wikipedia requirements for sources
I've just removed the additions cited from Elizabeth Whelan at ACSH.org for the following reasons: (1) They haven't been published in respected scientific journals as Wikipedia policy requires. (2) Although they claim they peer-review their own work and then have it peer-reviewed by scientific journals, I see no evidence that this is actually the case, and am highly dubious that the journals would have approved some of the statements Dr. Whelan has made. (3) The organisation itself seems to spend much of its time engaged in a rather petty war of words with another soi-disant independent group, CSPI. I don't think any organisation that stoops to saying "CSPI, though not bold enough to say so openly, is suggesting that unless you agree with CSPI, you must be a paid liar." really merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (4) Glancing through their "health issues" section, they appear to be advocating the industry position on just about every "issue" there: they're against the FDA having regulatory control over tobacco products, they're all for making nicotine less dangerous rather than helping people quit, are therefore dubious about nicotine patches, are opposed to obesity lawsuits being brought, and so on and so forth. There are a couple of articles which appear opposed to Big Tobacco - like an open letter to someone at Philip Morris - but without exception they mention only the battles the tobacco industry has already ceded.

In short, this organisation looks to me like it's been set up to trumpet lots of obvious health issues and to undermine all the ones which the tobacco, food, pharma, and heaven knows what other industries don't want to lose ground on. It's wholly inappropriate as a source here for that reason as well as because it doesn't appear to publish any original research or reviews in the journals. Nmg20 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We have restored the information for the following reasons: (1) They have been published in respected scientific journals as Wikipedia policy requires. (2) They state they peer-review their own work and then have it peer-reviewed by scientific journals. The journals listed are: Medscape, CRC Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Journal of Health Communications, Clinical Therepeutics, and Technology. Articles are published under the names of the authors, not the organization, so we see no evidence to disprove their statement. (3) We fail to see how defending itself from critics damages an organization's credibility. (4) Thier position on "hot button" issues varies, but they clearly state their reasoning. That they advocate only the "industry" position is untrue. i. They oppose FDA regulation of tobacco on the grounds that it would give the impression that tobacco is "FDA approved" and therefore "safe." ii. Your link on nicotine patches goes to a paper suggesting smoking cessation methods for inveterate smokers for whom conventional methods do not work, i.e. the patch. iii. They believe that obesity lawsuits modeled on tobacco lawsuits will fail, thereby doing more harm than good. i.e. Obesity as a "victim state."

The organization has never been discredited by any reliable source, and meets the Wikipedia criteria for citation.


 * Who is "we", please? Are you in any way connected with this group? In terms of your response, you'll notice that I linked to the relevant sections I was criticising - accordingly:
 * (1) You claim they've been published in scientific journals - if so, then of course they can be included. Please post full pubmed references to the relevant articles which support your claims.
 * (2) I simply don't believe that the journals you list have peer-reviewed statements such as "Talk about out of the trans-fat fryingpan and into the saturated-fat fire." - the tone is patently unscientific, as one would expect from a newspaper article. However, it's not directly relevant - valid sources are those which have been published in similar journals, not on an independent website.
 * (3) There are ways of defending yourself without resorting to rather childish namecalling.
 * (4) I appreciate what you're saying here, but would be interested in seeing e.g. the FDA's opinion of their regulating tobacco, etc.
 * I must disagree with your closing statement: suitable sources for scientific information are limited to articles published in respected scientific journals and to published scientific books. An organisation's website is not a valid source, and that is not merely my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy:
 * Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand:


 * Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses;
 * Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets;
 * Books written by widely published authors;
 * Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets;
 * The ACSH website does not fit any of these categories.Nmg20 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You claim they've been published in scientific journals - if so, then of course they can be included.

A random sampling of ACSH members Pubmed lists the following: ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,PMID: 12766592, etc. We assume the full list of hundreds of articles was not required.

As an organization of 350 scientists and physicians which has been in existence for 29 years, and the context of the cited text, the use of their website is suitable under the Attribution policy as a secondary source.

The list you provide above is not on the page linked to, but Attribution/FAQ which states that "references or links to this page should not describe it as policy."

"We" are simply the users of this IP. We are not affiliated with the ACSH. The above comment was added at 11:50, 8 April 2007 by User:69.141.30.12. Four tildes, like this ~ will sign your name and datestamp your comments.


 * The Attribution page has recently been created out of the three previously existing pages listed at the top of Attribution. Given that you quote directly from that, you've obviously read it - so you'll know that immediately before the section you quote is "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.", and that it has proposed status merely because it is a collation of three existing pieces of Wikipedia policy, not because the tenets it sets out are disputed.
 * Verifiability, No original research and Reliable sources are Wikipedia policy, and the list I provided is on both the Attribution and the NOR pages, so it is, as I said, policy. Hope that clears up any confusion, and I apologise for linking to the new version of them before its formal adoption.
 * My understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding attribution of claims in articles is that the information added or questioned must be supported by a specific article in one of the types of source I mentioned. Thus, articles like the ones you provided are useless unless they are concerned with passive smoking. In order, they are in fact about colonoscopy, brachial plexus palsy, anaesthetised rats, atypical antipsychotics, ditto, pharmacokinetics, schizophrenia, etc. All worthy subjects (although I feel a bit sorry for the rats) - but nothing whatever to do with smoking bans.
 * I'm not trying to be difficult here: however, a lot of users have put a lot of time and work into ensuring that this article only makes claims which are supported by scientific articles which have undergone proper peer-review and publication in the scientific journals, and I for one would like it to stay that way. As I said above, I have no way of knowing if the claims on the ACSH website have been made in articles by its members which are suitable sources - but if they have and you can provide links to them on pubmed, I have no issue with them being added here. Nmg20 17:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The ACSH website qualifies for inclusion as a reliable reference, as it complies with the following Wikipedia guidelines:

They are indeed a "mainstream" website. Their collective members have published articles numbering in the thousands in medical journals, magazines, newspapers, and their own publications. They have been mentioned in over 500 science and health articles in the mainstream press. These articles on their website fit the criteria for inclusion as a primary source, as their webiste stated the following

How thorough is ACSH's peer-review process?

ACSH position papers are prepared by staff researchers or outside scientists and then reviewed by ten or more ACSH advisors and other experts. This compares favorably with the review process used by the nation's most prestigious scientific and medical journals.

Further, Dr. Whelan is commenting on claims made by health organizations. These comments fit the criteria for inclusion as a secondary source.

Therefore, the comments are verifiable. As the comments are her opinion of existing information, there is no original research.

Pubmed is not the only suitable source of material for this article, as you are well aware. This comment was added at 12:29, 12 April 2007 by User:69.141.30.12. Please use four tildes, like this ~ to sign and datestamp your comments!


 * Look - no one is disputing that members of ACSH have published scientific articles which are appropriate primary sources. Let me be clear - the pubmed articles you linked in your previous post here are absolutely suitable for inclusion as wikipedia sources; they are so because they've been published in respected, peer-reviewed, scientific journals, as I've mentioned previously. However, so far you haven't produced any pubmed links to articles by ACSH members which are actually about smoking - if and when you do, great.
 * Until then, though, quoting ACSH's own website as "proof" of how reliable it is doesn't wash. The only scientific sources used in the references at the moment are (a) government websites, (b) newspapers and newswire services, (c) scientific articles, almost all linked on pubmed, and (d) educational establishments. There is one other site used - reference 20 to davehitt.com - but this is heavily disclaimed in the text: "It is sometimes argued that...", "They argue that...".
 * In other words, there are no websites like ACSH currently used as sources in the article. That's because if they're as scientifically rigorous as they claim - and despite my initial scepticism, I'm quite prepared to believe they are - then their opinions can be turned into articles, formally peer-reviewed in the scientific press, and published. That's when they become suitable for inclusion as wikipedia sources. Nmg20 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have clearly stated the Wikipedia policies which qualify the ACSH website for inclusion. There is no Wikipedia policy that states opinions about scientific studies must be published in a peer-reviewed journal, only the studies themselves.

You state as the only grounds for its exclusion that there are no similar references used in the article, which is no surprise, as you insist on removing them. This comment was added at 14:06, 14 April 2007 by User:69.141.30.12. Please sign your comments using four tildes like this ~


 * (1) You feel that ACSH is a primary source because "Their collective members have published articles numbering in the thousands in medical journals, magazines, newspapers, and their own publications." That's a total fallacy - the primary sources are those papers and articles, not ACSH itself, and you have yet to link to a single such article which actually concerns smoking.
 * (2) You claim that Dr. Whelan is a secondary source because she's commenting on "claims made by health organizations". It's possible Dr. Whelan would qualify as a secondary source. The question then becomes whether she's someone qualified enough to be cited on an encyclopaedia - given that her las scientific publication on smoking appears to be more than a decade old, I would suggest she is not.
 * (3) You say her claims are verifiable because she can be proved to have made them. Unfortunately, it is the claims themselves that need to be verifiable, not merely that someone saw fit to make them - and when those claims are that "There is no evidence that any New Yorker - patron or employee - has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke", and as such fly in the face of a large body of scientific evidence as outlined in the passive smoking article, the comments fall a long, long way short of being verifiable.
 * As I stated above, in my opinion to add Dr. Whelan's comments to Wikipedia, you need to cite them from the articles she's listed as having authored in the scientific press - it looks like the last one she wrote about smoking was in 1995 for the Lancet, which needless to say I have no qualms about as a source, and she has a handful from the mid-1980s related to this topic.
 * The best support for ACSH as a source that they can provide on their own website are people like the President of the Heritage Foundation, which is a right-leaning think-tank, "Ogden Newspapers (a large midwestern newspaper chain", "Pennysylvania Intelligencer", one doctor, and an extract from a Wall Street Journal article about milk. Precisely one of these - the one doctor - is a scientific source. That's not good enough for its members' opinions to be copied from its website into an encyclopaedia.
 * Finally, please try to sign your comments using four tildes ~ - it makes the discussions here much easier for others to follow, and is a basic courtesy to your fellow users. Nmg20 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy on verifiablility.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Wikipedia has no policy stating the every source used must be a scientific journal.

Stop demanding that we sign our posts. We choose not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.12 (talk • contribs)


 * My issue over verifiability is precisely that ACSH isn't a reliable source (except perhaps to Ogden Newspapers and a single infectious diseases doctor), and nor is someone whose last publication on the topic was over a decade ago. I think we've exhausted this discussion, however, and given that you choose to interpret a series of statements beginning "Please sign..." as "demanding", I'm not inclined to continue it. Nmg20 00:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

You have yet to provide a compelling reason why the ACSH is not a reliable source.

You demanded proof that the members of ACSH were published in peer-reviewd journals. I provided it. You then changed your criteria, demanding proof that the comments themselves were published in a peer-reviewed journal, when no Wikipedia policies require it.

I commend your decision to end an argument that you have lost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.30.12 (talk • contribs).


 * 69.141.30.12, could you please in the future sign your posts. This is elementary politeness.


 * I support Nmg20's position regarding the removal of the citations from Elizabeth Whelan at ACSH.org. This is indeed not a reliable and authoritative source. To learn more about either ACSH and Elizabeth Whelan, see Trust us, we're experts, by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (Tarcher/Putman 2001), in particular the section dedicated to ACSH on pages 244-247.
 * --Dessources 11:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a Wikipedia policy you can cite, or only anti-tobacco rants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.12 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not going to restate my objections - but I will address your absurd claim that: "You demanded proof that the members of ACSH were published in peer-reviewd journals. I provided it. You then changed your criteria, demanding proof that the comments themselves were published in a peer-reviewed journal, when no Wikipedia policies require it."
 * This is manifestly untrue - my first post, above, reads: "I've just removed the additions cited from Elizabeth Whelan at ACSH.org for the following reasons: (1) They haven't been published in respected scientific journals as Wikipedia policy requires." 'They' here is the additions, not the members - who at this stage I hadn't even mentioned.
 * Finally, I've now posted links to the relevant wikipedia policies over and over again. You can misstate them and avoid addressing them until you're blue in the face - they are there for everyone to see, just as is the comment at the top of every talk page on the site telling you to use four tildes to sign your name. Your comments here have become increasingly juvenile (e.g. "I commend your decision..."), and your behaviour is likewise. If you can demonstrate that Elizabeth Whelan is an authority on smoking bans, fine - otherwise, you're really just wasting your time and mine. Nmg20 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to your uncivil tone. I find your rudeness quite offensive. Please refer to the Wikipedia policies on civility.


 * Coming in late, I agree with Nmg20 that ACSH is an inappropriate source for objective information. It's an industry-funded lobby group that mainly produces advocacy research denying risks associated with consumer products and the like. The anti-smoking stance is a figleaf. On the other hand as your shy interlocutor says, ACSH has been around for a while and is well-established as a thinktank, so its statements might reasonably included under a heading like "Industry views".JQ 06:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-considered response, JQ. I submit that some other well-established organizations may not be objective, either, especially if their funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry.

I have no objection to such criticisms appearing in the article, to balance the commentary.

I respectfully disagree that their anti-smoking stance is a "figleaf." (Nice turn of phrase, btw)

They maintain the website thescooponsmoking.com, written in simple terms for the average teenager, with a clickable map that goes all the way to the testes. They also have a anti-smoking literature which is available from a number of organizations as well as their own website. Have you read "Cigarettes: What the Warning Label Doesn't Tell You; The First Comprehensive Guide to the Health Consequences of Smoking"? That's no figleaf.

It seems to me that the ETS-related controversy erupted over the comments made by Dr. Whelan that some of the infomation presented by the anti-smoking organizations is exaggerated. Though well-meaning, she thinks in the end such tactics will do more harm than good.

The use of the ACSH website as a source may be moot, since I have found similar comments in The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

I have a question about Smoking Bans in North Carolina.
I hastily apologize if this is the wrong place for this question, as this is my first time using a Talk Page. If so, please redirect me to the proper area.

I would like to know if there are any current or pending smoking bans in North Carolina. I did not see it on the list, but I suspect (or rather, hope) that it has just been overlooked. I will be moving to NC soon, and am allergic to cigarette smoke, so this poses a somewhat great problem for me. As of now, I live in Florida, where indoor public smoking is prohibited.

Thank you and I apologize again if this is the wrong place for this.

RufioUniverse 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You are NOT allergic to cigarette smoke. Allergies are caused by proteins, which cigarette smoke contains none of. You may be hypersensitive to it, but that's a problem with you, not with the smoke. This twisting of scientific terminology is typical of antismokers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.32.117 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is utter rubbish, and it's pretty brazen of the poster to claim that "antismokers" are "twisting...scientific terminology" when they have such a tenuous grasp of immunology themselves. As ever, the most basic of research on wikipedia would have turned up that allergies are scientifically one of the five forms of hypersensitivity and that these can be caused by antigens which are molecules, not necessarily proteins. I have no idea if User:RufioUniverse is actually allergic to anything, but he/she certainly could be. Nmg20 09:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's the wrong place for it - but the list of smoking bans in the United States makes no mention of North Carolina that I can see. That's not to say there's no ban in place, merely that it hasn't made it onto wikipedia if one exists - so let us know what you find out! Nmg20 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done a small bit of research (and by small, I mean atomic) and found some noteworthy information regarding this issue, although I shall admit that the overall scheme of the content eludes me and I cannot fully understand all of it.


 * I was hoping someone could help in understanding these bills (although, as the site says, they are NOT official documents, so I don't know how useful they are for adding to the list of bans or whatnot):


 * Smoking in Public Places/Local Health Dept.


 * Smoking in Public Places/Local Health/DSS.


 * Indoor Arena Smoking Regulations.


 * Designate General Assembly Buildings Nonsmoking.


 * Community Colleges Exempt From Smoking Laws.


 * RufioUniverse 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The "victimless crime"
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[citation needed].

This piece emerges flawed in its equally prejudiced and offensive manner. Its foremost flaw concerns its inability to maintain that establishments that uphold a smoking consensus primarily accommodate for both parties, appreciating the health risks by enforcing a separate smoking area. This is of course with the exception of pubs and cafes and of a nature predisposed to acknowledging smokers, of which workers in these scenarios are fully aware of the health risks and implications of the workplace. This article portrays employees as lame ducks.

The text on the whole is utterly biased, implicated at the outset by “Victimless Crime” embedded in quotation, undermining the argument it sets out to convey fairly. It appears as one author’s train of thought, completed with the flimsy conclusion that smokers should be limited to smoking in private. This is for fear of contaminating “workers […] disabled people […] pregnant women […] or children”; implying society on the whole as victims to merciless smokers, when the health risks of passive smoking primarily affect a small percentage of the population that work in a smoking environment or those residing with a smoker.

Additionally, I would ask upon the author to explain what exactly is meant by “disabled people (who are unable to choose their environments)” and why it hasn’t been omitted to the corresponding groups “workers”, “pregnant women” and “children”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.113.16 (talk • contribs)


 * No idea who wrote it, and I find your comment difficult to follow in places, but:
 * (1) There are problems with separate smoking areas - specifically, there's doubt over whether they worked (see the passive smoking article for details) and workers are still exposed whether they like it or not.
 * (2) Workers at places which "acknowledge" (which implies "encourage") smokers put their employees at greater risk, and the assumption you make - that workers are "fully aware of the health risks and implications" of that exposure - would be laughed out of court during the many lawsuits which would arise but for the ban.
 * (3) I disagree that quotation marks undermine the sentiment - they could also indicate, er, quotation - but titling it "The victimless crime argument" would also be fine.
 * (4) The health risks of passive smoking apply to anyone exposed to smoking, and that's a huge proportion of the population. Unless you wish to claim that only a "small percentage" of the population visit pubs or bars...?
 * (5) I read the references to disabled people to indicate that those with reduced mobility are already limited in where they can go and shouldn't be further by the risks of ETS; to workers that they shouldn't have to put themselves at risk to work; and to pregnant women and children to highlight the increased vulnerability of such groups to ETS. Nmg20 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of impartiality, should the article make cross-reference to the meaning of risk ratios. The statistical claims may be an accurate representation of, for example a 25% increased risk, but there is a strong possibility that some readers will mis-interpret this as a 25% liklihood; a rather different thing. It may also be advisable to put in a cross-reference to statistical confidence. Mahlerdane 01:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 36 link bad
Links to general website, not specific info.

The "victimless crime"? Shouldn't this be deleted?
Quote from article:

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".

End quote

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this. Although I oppose smoking I have an open mind whith regard to pro-smoking arguments. This argument however doesn't seem to make any sense. Yes, if a smoker happens to be only amongst other people who smoke one could possibly argue that it is a victimless crime. Even then it's a dared statement because the damage these smokers cause among other smokers is still bigger then when they don't smoke. More important, how often is a smoker only amongst other smokers? The smoking ban is currently limited to public places (train, government buildings, beach...), workplaces and facilities where people go out. These places have in common that most of us are surrounded by many other people, some of them are bound to be non-smokers. These very few smokers who happen to be only surrounded by fellow smokers, does this small percentage justify this pro smoking argument? I don't think so, especially because even their 'crime' is not victimless.

I strongly believe that this argument should be removed from this article when we want this article to have a neutral point of view.

193.190.253.148 05:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right, but I think for the wrong reasons. The section purports to refute a particular argument against smoking bans, yet lacks any references on either side of the discussion, pro or con.  As such it smacks of original research and a Strawman argument.  I've further tagged it in need of references, and suggest it is removed shortly if no-one comes up with any. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great.
 * 193.190.253.148 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has my edit on Scottish heart attack study been removed?
I attempted to put it into context, and linked to official stats from NHS Scotland which demonstrate a 16.7% drop in heart attack admissions in the 3 months prior to introduction of the smoking ban.

I also thought it was important that the study was not peer reviewed. Moreover, as the study hasn't been peer reviewed, shouldn't it be removed, as per wiki's guidelines? If it's not acceptable to reference the ACSH, how is it acceptable to reference the Scottish heart attack study which nobody has been able to view, or indeed review, in any detail?

Timclarke85 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it for these reasons;
 * Where do the official stats demonstrate a 16.7% drop? If it it isn't actually stated then we must assume that what you are saying is your own Original Research based on the extensive figures you've linked to. If it is stated somewhere then cite it.
 * Where is it stated that the study was not peer reviewed? I don't know if it has or hasn't, and so far we have only your word on it.  Cite reputable sources.
 * The newspaper article you cited mentions no concerns about the size of the study's sample, or whether the study was peer reviewed or not. If concern has been raised by significant people then cite it.  Otherwise these again are your own Original Research.
 * -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed for Arguments against Smoking Bans
One set of claims is still without a reference. (Last paragraph) Please add qualifying references to the claim to justify it's presence. Be advised that if no references are added after some time, someone may decide to remove the content. 71.9.1.138 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will probably be able to find a couple of references to add to this. I also think a paragraph on ventilation might be useful.

By what date is this section scheduled for deletion?

Timclarke85 09:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of article dealing with economic impact of Hong Kong ban and specifics on Ireland (440 fewer licenses reviewed in 2006 than in 2005, over 1000 pubs shut as of 27 Feb 2007).
Why have these edits of mine been removed?

Timclarke85 09:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea. Rather than posting on the talk page, you may want to look back through the article's edit history. That will tell you who removed the edits, when, and hopefully (if they've posted an edit summary) why. If you then post on that user's talk page, you're more likely to get a response than by posting on here, where most people probably aren't aware of the edits you're talking about. Nmg20 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unconstitutional?
I'm not very knowledgeable in this topic, but wouldn't a ban of smoking in private businesses, isn't that unconstitutional? Alec92 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pub Takings Figures
I've removed part of the section about reports on pub takings declining in England and Wales since the smoking ban. If you look at the article cited [here] it's quite obvious that the figures quoted are simply being pulled out the air by one individual, with no indication of how representative they are or where they came from. If we are to take to task a report in Scotland about heart attacks for not being published with source data, I don't think it's unreasonable for similarly quoted figures about pub profits to at least approach the same level of thoroughness. Indeed, we know very little about the Industry report that the comments are based on. Was the survey self-selecting? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)