Record number of smokers quit

Record number of smokers quit

In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
public smoking ban is a win-win situation.

Here's a news report about it ...

http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
ciety

The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
still doing a thriving business.

What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
smoking.

I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <srhi-E92B4A.10143729062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
>record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
>public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
>
>Here's a news report about it ...
>
> http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
>ciety
>
>The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
>Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
>still doing a thriving business.
>
>What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
>motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
>smoking.
>
>I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
>wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
>Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.

I'm guessing Michigan and North Carolina this year with
Wisconsin, South Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Alabama and Texas
next year.

Like you say, all the reasons given against bans have been proven false.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

On 29 Jun 2008 15:36:38 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>In article <srhi-E92B4A.10143729062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
>Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
>>record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
>>public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
>>
>>Here's a news report about it ...
>>
>> http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
>>ciety
>>
>>The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
>>Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
>>still doing a thriving business.
>>
>>What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
>>motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
>>smoking.
>>
>>I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
>>wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
>>Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.
>
>I'm guessing Michigan and North Carolina this year with
>Wisconsin, South Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Alabama and Texas
>next year.
>
>Like you say, all the reasons given against bans have been proven false.

By ordinary standards of proof, the cited article proves the fears were TRUE.

"The ban contributed to the closure of 1,409 pubs in 2007, compared with just 216 closing
in 2006."

But ordinary standards are not used for antismoking propaganda, where 'proof' is measured
in repetitions of the same lie. Saying bars are not hurt by smoking bans OFTEN ENOUGH
makes it true, even though facts say otherwise.

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more
nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <m5kf645j03fce9dljvjchdklkjqe3o3ia2@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 29 Jun 2008 15:36:38 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <srhi-E92B4A.10143729062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
>>Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>>In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
>>>record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
>>>public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
>>>
>>>Here's a news report about it ...
>>>
>>> http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
>>>ciety
>>>
>>>The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
>>>Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
>>>still doing a thriving business.
>>>
>>>What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
>>>motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
>>>smoking.
>>>
>>>I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
>>>wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
>>>Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.
>>
>>I'm guessing Michigan and North Carolina this year with
>>Wisconsin, South Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Alabama and Texas
>>next year.
>>
>>Like you say, all the reasons given against bans have been proven false.
>
>By ordinary standards of proof, the cited article proves the fears were TRUE.
>
>"The ban contributed to the closure of 1,409 pubs in 2007, compared with
>just 216 closing
>in 2006."
>
>But ordinary standards are not used for antismoking propaganda, where
>'proof' is measured
>in repetitions of the same lie. Saying bars are not hurt by smoking bans
>OFTEN ENOUGH
>makes it true, even though facts say otherwise.
>
>Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean
>- neither more
>nor less.
>Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many
>different things.
>Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.

How many closed because of the bad weather, the high price of
both gas and booze?

All of them.

And how many reopened by people who actually knew how to run
a business?

Come on, Robert. You're still falling for Big Tobacco's lies.

How stupid are you, anyway?

I'm very disappointed you won't keep a list of repealed
bans. It would be certain proof they hurt business. It would
be a frequent reminder to us all. But you know you would
go years between adding another if at all.

Money talks. If bans were hurting tax receipts to cities,
they would be repealed overnight. It isn't happening.
Try to explain that away. Give it some thought before
you parrot Big Tobacco.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

On 29 Jun 2008 18:55:13 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>In article <m5kf645j03fce9dljvjchdklkjqe3o3ia2@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 29 Jun 2008 15:36:38 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <srhi-E92B4A.10143729062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
>>>Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>>>In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
>>>>record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
>>>>public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
>>>>
>>>>Here's a news report about it ...
>>>>
>>>> http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
>>>>ciety
>>>>
>>>>The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
>>>>Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
>>>>still doing a thriving business.
>>>>
>>>>What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
>>>>motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
>>>>smoking.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
>>>>wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
>>>>Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.
>>>
>>>I'm guessing Michigan and North Carolina this year with
>>>Wisconsin, South Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Alabama and Texas
>>>next year.
>>>
>>>Like you say, all the reasons given against bans have been proven false.
>>
>>By ordinary standards of proof, the cited article proves the fears were TRUE.
>>
>>"The ban contributed to the closure of 1,409 pubs in 2007, compared with
>>just 216 closing
>>in 2006."
>>
>>But ordinary standards are not used for antismoking propaganda, where
>>'proof' is measured
>>in repetitions of the same lie. Saying bars are not hurt by smoking bans
>>OFTEN ENOUGH
>>makes it true, even though facts say otherwise.
>>
>>Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean
>>- neither more
>>nor less.
>>Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many
>>different things.
>>Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.
>
>How many closed because of the bad weather, the high price of
>both gas and booze?
>
>All of them.

Bad weather and high prices were not invented in 2007. England had both in 2006. The big
change was a smoking ban.

>And how many reopened by people who actually knew how to run
>a business?

Let's see what they have to say.

The Guardian,
Thursday January 17, 2008

Britain's biggest pub landlord, Punch Taverns, has seen a marked deterioration in trading
in the traditionally busy Christmas period as the industry continues to suffer from the
impact of the smoking ban and declining consumer confidence.

Punch is the first pub group to report on the first Christmas trading period under the
UK-wide ban on smoking in public places. Enterprise Inns will follow this morning, with JD
Wetherspoon, Marstons and Luminar later this month.

Winter weather is the big test for pubs as smokers must use outside areas after the phased
introduction of the ban last year. Many are choosing to drink at home instead.

Before the winter, Punch sold almost 1,000 of its smaller, less profitable pubs - about 9%
of its total estate - in order to protect itself from the worst effects of the ban.

Despite heavy pruning, comparable profit per pub across the group's tenanted estate for
the 20 weeks to January 5 slipped 0.8%, with a significant deterioration for an eight-week
period over Christmas and the new year. Comparable sales at the group's 869 managed pubs
fell 2.2% over the 20-week period and an estimated 5% over the festive spell.

The figures suggested that those tenanted pubs disposed of last year are likely to have
fared substantially worse. Industry insiders said average profits for the thousands of
independent tenants who rent and operate Punch's pubs were likely to have suffered heavily
as the group sought to protect revenues and profits.

Punch shares, which have more than halved from highs of close to £14 last May, last night
closed down 28p at 590p.

Nigel Parson, an analyst at Evolution Securities, suggested the true picture could be
worse than disclosed. "This trading statement has come too soon after the festive period
to really indicate how tenants have traded over Christmas. We think there is still a lot
of unsold beer left in pub cellars and it typically takes until the end of the month to
get a proper fix. Tenants in trouble will sell the stocks they have before throwing in the
keys."

http :// www .guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/17/smoking.ban.pub.taverns

>Come on, Robert. You're still falling for Big Tobacco's lies.

The quoted article came from the UK Department of Health.

>How stupid are you, anyway?
>
>I'm very disappointed you won't keep a list of repealed
>bans. It would be certain proof they hurt business. It would
>be a frequent reminder to us all. But you know you would
>go years between adding another if at all.
>
>Money talks. If bans were hurting tax receipts to cities,
>they would be repealed overnight. It isn't happening.
>Try to explain that away. Give it some thought before
>you parrot Big Tobacco.

Money DID talk when pharma was financing smoking ban campaigns. Now that they've given up,
we'll see what happens.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <ngag645d3d6abauvllqk8e7q9juj8bq8u5@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

> On 29 Jun 2008 18:55:13 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >In article <m5kf645j03fce9dljvjchdklkjqe3o3ia2@4ax,com >,
> >Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> >>On 29 Jun 2008 15:36:38 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <srhi-E92B4A.10143729062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
> >>>Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
> >>>>In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
> >>>>record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
> >>>>public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
> >>>>
> >>>>Here's a news report about it ...
> >>>>
> >>>> http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
> >>>>ciety
> >>>>
> >>>>The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
> >>>>Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
> >>>>still doing a thriving business.
> >>>>
> >>>>What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
> >>>>motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
> >>>>smoking.
> >>>>
> >>>>I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
> >>>>wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
> >>>>Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.
> >>>
> >>>I'm guessing Michigan and North Carolina this year with
> >>>Wisconsin, South Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Alabama and Texas
> >>>next year.
> >>>
> >>>Like you say, all the reasons given against bans have been proven false.
> >>
> >>By ordinary standards of proof, the cited article proves the fears were
> >>TRUE.
> >>
> >>"The ban contributed to the closure of 1,409 pubs in 2007, compared with
> >>just 216 closing
> >>in 2006."
> >>
> >>But ordinary standards are not used for antismoking propaganda, where
> >>'proof' is measured
> >>in repetitions of the same lie. Saying bars are not hurt by smoking bans
> >>OFTEN ENOUGH
> >>makes it true, even though facts say otherwise.
> >>
> >>Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean
> >>- neither more
> >>nor less.
> >>Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many
> >>different things.
> >>Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.
> >
> >How many closed because of the bad weather, the high price of
> >both gas and booze?
> >
> >All of them.
>
> Bad weather and high prices were not invented in 2007. England had both in
> 2006. The big
> change was a smoking ban.
>
> >And how many reopened by people who actually knew how to run
> >a business?
>
> Let's see what they have to say.
>
> The Guardian,
> Thursday January 17, 2008
>
> Britain's biggest pub landlord, Punch Taverns, has seen a marked
> deterioration in trading
> in the traditionally busy Christmas period as the industry continues to
> suffer from the
> impact of the smoking ban and declining consumer confidence.
>
> Punch is the first pub group to report on the first Christmas trading period
> under the
> UK-wide ban on smoking in public places. Enterprise Inns will follow this
> morning, with JD
> Wetherspoon, Marstons and Luminar later this month.
>
> Winter weather is the big test for pubs as smokers must use outside areas
> after the phased
> introduction of the ban last year. Many are choosing to drink at home
> instead.
>
> Before the winter, Punch sold almost 1,000 of its smaller, less profitable
> pubs - about 9%
> of its total estate - in order to protect itself from the worst effects of
> the ban.
>
> Despite heavy pruning, comparable profit per pub across the group's tenanted
> estate for
> the 20 weeks to January 5 slipped 0.8%, with a significant deterioration for
> an eight-week
> period over Christmas and the new year. Comparable sales at the group's 869
> managed pubs
> fell 2.2% over the 20-week period and an estimated 5% over the festive spell.

Big deal. A 2.2% reduction in profit, which is also attributed partly to
low consumer confidence, as this article said. Pubs' profits are likely
to improve when the British economy swings back into an expansion mode,
as it is bound to do.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <ngag645d3d6abauvllqk8e7q9juj8bq8u5@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>>Money talks. If bans were hurting tax receipts to cities,
>>they would be repealed overnight. It isn't happening.
>>Try to explain that away. Give it some thought before
>>you parrot Big Tobacco.
>
>Money DID talk when pharma was financing smoking ban campaigns. Now that
>they've given up,
>we'll see what happens.

We'll see. But in my list of new bans not in a list of
repeals (which you were offered to keep and refused).

When will you admit defeat? Big Pharma wasn't propping up
city or states budgets. When things get tough, they will either
repeal smoking bans or raise cigarette taxes. Which do you think
they will do? What did they do during the last recession?

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <1214765704.244142@irys.nyx,net >,
anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> And how many reopened by people who actually knew how to run
> a business?
>
> Come on, Robert. You're still falling for Big Tobacco's lies.
>
> How stupid are you, anyway?
>
> I'm very disappointed you won't keep a list of repealed
> bans. It would be certain proof they hurt business. It would
> be a frequent reminder to us all. But you know you would
> go years between adding another if at all.
>
> Money talks. If bans were hurting tax receipts to cities,
> they would be repealed overnight. It isn't happening.
> Try to explain that away. Give it some thought before
> you parrot Big Tobacco.

Robert doesn't want to maintain a list of repealed bans for the simple
reason that they are few and far between, if at all.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <srhi-D48082.22005429062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <1214765704.244142@irys.nyx,net >,
> anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>> And how many reopened by people who actually knew how to run
>> a business?
>>
>> Come on, Robert. You're still falling for Big Tobacco's lies.
>>
>> How stupid are you, anyway?
>>
>> I'm very disappointed you won't keep a list of repealed
>> bans. It would be certain proof they hurt business. It would
>> be a frequent reminder to us all. But you know you would
>> go years between adding another if at all.
>>
>> Money talks. If bans were hurting tax receipts to cities,
>> they would be repealed overnight. It isn't happening.
>> Try to explain that away. Give it some thought before
>> you parrot Big Tobacco.
>
>Robert doesn't want to maintain a list of repealed bans for the simple
>reason that they are few and far between, if at all.

Actually there have been quite a few--a couple of dozen.
Most were in Massachusetts and California in the 1990s before
the states themselves went smokefree.

The challenge to Robert was a list of repeals which are still
in effect or new. My list of new smoking bans, just since Ipad
(the Big N) claimed the movement would reverse in 2003, contains
more than 800.

Most of the cases where courts have overturned bans
were in states with preemption, meaning state law prohibits localities
from passing their own ordinances--like Norfolk and Virginia
Beach, Virginia. We haven't seen local bans in Michigan, North
Carolina and South Dakota for the same reason. Should preemption
in those states be repealed, you would see many of their
cities going smokefree.

Robert is either trolling or an idiot. Before the pendulum swings
back it has to slow. The trend is not slowing.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <1214753797.855408@irys.nyx,net >,
anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

> In article <srhi-E92B4A.10143729062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
> >In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
> >record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
> >public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
> >
> >Here's a news report about it ...
> >
> > http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
> >ciety
> >
> >The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
> >Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
> >still doing a thriving business.
> >
> >What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
> >motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
> >smoking.
> >
> >I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
> >wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
> >Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.
>
> I'm guessing Michigan and North Carolina this year with
> Wisconsin, South Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Alabama and Texas
> next year.
>
> Like you say, all the reasons given against bans have been proven false.

Texas? Definitely, but probably not so soon. Texans tend to be slow
learners (we see that with President Bush). As such, it will take longer
before Texas' officials see the wisdom of banning indoor public smoking.
The Carolinas might also be slow to ban indoor public smoking because
their economy is dependent upon nicotine addiction, so they may be
reluctant because they fear biting the hand that feeds them, but they
will eventually come around, just like Pennsylvania finally did.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <srhi-76D617.21580029062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <1214753797.855408@irys.nyx,net >,
> anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>> In article <srhi-E92B4A.10143729062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
>> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>> >In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
>> >record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
>> >public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
>> >
>> >Here's a news report about it ...
>> >
>> > http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
>> >ciety
>> >
>> >The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
>> >Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
>> >still doing a thriving business.
>> >
>> >What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
>> >motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
>> >smoking.
>> >
>> >I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
>> >wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
>> >Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.
>>
>> I'm guessing Michigan and North Carolina this year with
>> Wisconsin, South Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Alabama and Texas
>> next year.
>>
>> Like you say, all the reasons given against bans have been proven false.
>
>Texas? Definitely, but probably not so soon. Texans tend to be slow
>learners (we see that with President Bush). As such, it will take longer
>before Texas' officials see the wisdom of banning indoor public smoking.

Texans are not as slow as Alabamans or Mississippians. Dallas and
Fort Worth are smokefree. Most of the large city are--like Houston,
El Paso, San Antonio. The legislature meets only in odd numbered
years. Were that not so they would have gone smokefree this year.

>The Carolinas might also be slow to ban indoor public smoking because
>their economy is dependent upon nicotine addiction, so they may be
>reluctant because they fear biting the hand that feeds them, but they
>will eventually come around, just like Pennsylvania finally did.

Tobacco used to come from the Carolinas and Virginia but not
so much anymore. It comes mostly from Brazil and Zimbabwe. They
will resist smoking bans. The US will be completely smokefree indoors
next year or 2010 at the very latest.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

On 30 Jun 2008 03:25:25 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:


>Texans are not as slow as Alabamans or Mississippians.

Human genetics is the same everywhere. Intelligence is distributed the same everywhere.
Not just in the US but also in England, Bangladesh, Iraq, Germany and Rwanda. If you think
otherwise, you're a bigot.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:58:00 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:

>In article <1214753797.855408@irys.nyx,net >,
> anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>> In article <srhi-E92B4A.10143729062008@newsgroups,com cast,net >,
>> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>> >In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
>> >record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
>> >public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
>> >
>> >Here's a news report about it ...
>> >
>> > http :// www .guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/29/smoking.health?gusrc=rss&feed=so
>> >ciety
>> >
>> >The opponents of this indoor public smoking ban are obviously wrong.
>> >Thanks to this ban, fewer UK citizens are smoking and plenty of pubs are
>> >still doing a thriving business.
>> >
>> >What's really great about this news is that it will no doubt help
>> >motivate government officials in other areas to ban indoor public
>> >smoking.
>> >
>> >I wonder which state will be next to ban public smoking indoors. It
>> >wouldn't surprise me if Alabama is next. Eventually, even stalwart
>> >Texans will benefit from an indoor public smoking ban.
>>
>> I'm guessing Michigan and North Carolina this year with
>> Wisconsin, South Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Alabama and Texas
>> next year.
>>
>> Like you say, all the reasons given against bans have been proven false.
>
>Texas? Definitely, but probably not so soon. Texans tend to be slow
>learners (we see that with President Bush).

Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut, educated mostly at Phillips Academy in Andover,
Massachusetts, got an undergrad degree in history from Yale in New Haven. He lost his
first run for US Congress in West Texas because he was seen as too smart and a yankee
carpetbagger. He quickly corrected both perceptions by pretending to be dumb and a Texan.
He fooled you on both.

He is not dumb. It's an act.

>As such, it will take longer
>before Texas' officials see the wisdom of banning indoor public smoking.

Large and medium-sized Texas cities banned smoking years ago. What's left are rural towns.
The state government wisely avoids imposing city ideas on rural folk.

>The Carolinas might also be slow to ban indoor public smoking because
>their economy is dependent upon nicotine addiction, so they may be
>reluctant because they fear biting the hand that feeds them, but they
>will eventually come around, just like Pennsylvania finally did.

There is no similarity between the Carolinas and Pennsylvania, and little between North
and South Carolina. North Carolina is a former tobacco state trying to put that (and
furniture) behind it and become high tech. It is on the periphery of the South, meaning it
is full of Jerry Springer rednecks. South Carolina is Deep South, as much as Alabama and
Georgia, meaning its people are the epitome of mannerliness. They are NOT rednecks and
they don't want to shed their past or be like anywhere else.

Most restaurants in North Carolina have been voluntarily non-smoking for years. Even in
the tobacco heartland, called The Triad -- Winston-Salem, Greensboro and High Point. It
would be easy for NC to ban smoking. It would be more difficult in SC, which doesn't grow
much tobacco but has the grace to leave its people alone.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:14:38 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:

>In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
>record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
>public smoking ban is a win-win situation.

This shows that the real purpose of smoking bans is to coerce smokers into quitting. It is
not to protect nonsmokers; that's just an excuse to get their votes and unpaid labor.

When antismoking organizations measure the effectiveness of a campaign, they compare the
'smoking incidence rate' before and after. They do NOT measure indoor air quality.

Re: Record number of smokers quit

In article <r0if64l6fjrlu7n6vas4ime36qq43vq1b5@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:14:38 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>
>>In the first year of the United Kingdom's indoor public smoking ban, a
>>record number of people quit smoking. So, just as I predicted, the
>>public smoking ban is a win-win situation.
>
>This shows that the real purpose of smoking bans is to coerce smokers
>into quitting. It is
>not to protect nonsmokers; that's just an excuse to get their votes and
>unpaid labor.

Getting smokers to quit is collateral. Nonsmokers get air that doesn't
have tobacco smoke in it. Politicians and health workers may care
about smokers. Nonsmokers don't.

>When antismoking organizations measure the effectiveness of a campaign,
>they compare the
>'smoking incidence rate' before and after. They do NOT measure indoor
>air quality.

They measure air quality before and after. I'm surprised
you're not aware of that.