Comments on: Despite Previous Defeat, Kirkwood Tries Again for Smoking Ban

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:45:21 +0000

Potential employees have the same ability to turn down a job at an establishment that allows smoking as potential costumers have to patronize a different business. Nobody is being forced to work in a job that they think damages their health — working there is fully discretionary behavior.

And you can certainly count me as solidly opposed to industry subsidies of all stripes.

By: Bill H

Bill H — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:30:30 +0000

decreasely significantly is just my way of saying “decreased significantly”

By: Bill H

Bill H — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:28:37 +0000

This is certainly not a straighforward issue. There are health issues that extend beyond the patrons. The workers in the establishment have a higher risk of many kinds of respiratory ailments. This has been evaluated in multiple localities which enacted smoke free ordinances, and there are significantly fewer illness in those same employees 6 months after enactment of the ban. In several cities, the incidence of cardiac disease decreasely significantly after smoking bans were enacted.

There are multiple other confounding issues with tobacoo policy. The federal government continues to give subsidies to tobacco farmers. It makes absolutely no sense to me for us to incentivize the growth of tobacco while at the same time penalizing the end users of the product through taxes and bans on where they can enjoy the product (unless our intention is to export almost all of the tobacco to other countries).

By: vroman

vroman — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:57:35 +0000

going to duffys more often

By: Joe Nonnenkamp

Joe Nonnenkamp — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:57:44 +0000

At least there isn’t a state or city/county ban. That way the cities that pass these silly things can be effectively punished and see the error of their ways.