The "study" of the smoking ban effect on jobs was conducted in Minnesota, however, Ms Klein, being from out of town, probably didn't notice the 327+ closed bars & restaurants and 10,000+ laid-off hospitality workers since smoking bans were enacted here in MN: http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/05/clearway-minnesota-funds-new-study-to.html Author Liz Klein explains Minnesota / OSU’s “study” “…the research took place between 2003-2006…..” But Minnesota’s statewide ban didn't go into effect until 2007, so you can see the reason they found virtually no statistical harm.

That may be true that 327+ businesses closed, however, in almost every case it was not due to a smoking ban, but rather the business was getting ready to close anyway. Some businesses can't seem to play well on an equal playing field and that is what smoking bans do - everyone has the same opportunity. Anyway for those places that folded it was a good excuse to blame it on something else.

Ms. Klein is not aware of the damage in her home town of Columbus, let alone Minnesota. One can easily assume that she must spend all her time on the phone speaking to antismoking lobbyists, on the net, behind her desk and in the library looking at data, rather than taking a walk across the street into the real world. Bars have closed right under her nose right there in the Ohio State campus area. Larry's is the most famous concerning the collateral damage of the Ohio smoking ban. They had been in business since alcohol prohibition was lifted in the 1930's, was a hotspot for those of "Bohemian" lifestyle and interests and was not able to build a patio because of the location. It closed it's doors earlier this year after struggling since the smoking ban was forced upon them. There have been several others since that time, also. Ms. Klein's "study" is Ivory Tower opinion to write off. There is no basis in reality concerning her "study".

"Preventionist" offers the usual lame broadbrush excuses of the antismoking mindset who like to sweep these things under the rug hoping no one will notice. When a business is successful until a ban is implemented, the ban is the reason for the demise of the business. Patio building is a financial hardship businesses have to budget for immediately with these bans. The extensive remodeling is not donated by the construction crews, nor is a grant awarded to the business owners from the antismoking lobbyists to ease the investment. When a business has to take a financial undertaking with these expensive remodeling projects along with the loss of customers, the financial loss can be too overwhelming for them to consider carrying on. Bans invite financial damage from the first day they are implemented. The necessity of building a patio immediately is more than obvious. Yet in temperate climates, these patios are only useful for several months out of the year even at that. Smoking bans are damaging to the bar business from day one. Case closed.

Ohio's ban also became effective in 2007. During the first year, 313 bars closed and the jobs lost totalled 5,400. Permit holders lost 67.4 million in sales. This doesn't include the closed veterans clubs, bowling alleys, bingo halls and restaurants.

Musician, boy you sure are on the old band wagon - way to go. Remember, the old adage, "Change is good." Have you ever thought about all of the healthcare costs alone caused by smoking and secondhand smoke. Just take a quick look at the study that was conducted in Helena, MT when they had their 1st ban and then it was overturned. It is amazing to me that the intelligent people of our nation can't see the devastation of heart disease, heart attacks. It is definitely worth a look and then come back and tell me that these bans are horrible. Again, it puts everyone on the same playing field - so suck it up.

University of Minnesota/OSU Tobacco Control Study Flawed; Combining Data on Bars and Restaurants Skewed Results COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Ohio newspapers, radio and TV news recently broadcast the results of a study performed at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health with Elizabeth Klein, Assistant Professor, Health Behavior and Health Promotion, Ohio State University as lead researcher. This study was funded by ClearWay Minnesota, a non-profit organization that funds Minnesota tobacco control, and used employment data as its sole economic indicator. http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-29-2009/0005034690&EDATE

Must have struck that tired antismoking nerve of yours "Preventionist". Perhaps "Prohibitionist" would be a better internet name for you. The infamous Helena "study" has also been debunked. Second hand smoke has never been written on a death certificate either, but that's old news and you are well aware of it. Suck it up and take it like a man. Your organizations are being seen for what they are and I expect many protests from those in your organizations as you are the ones in the throws of a Swan Song. The public is waking up to your deception and it is past time. Good things come to those who wait and, yes, "change is good".

Here's a press release about this so-called study. http://money.aol.com/news/articles?id=n20090529104109990020&cid=2369

I find it ironic this article will be published in Prevention Science.Why? Because Science has been prevented at every turn by special interest epidemiology studies funded by entities interested soley in moneytary gain as opposed to scientic integrity

I find it odd that there are so many businesses closing their doors because they can no longer allow smoking or build the outdoor patios. This is telling us that the only people who spend their money in bars and restaurants or any public place for that matter are just the smokers - wrong... Statistically, there are approximately 20% of the whole population that smokes. What happened to the other 80% of us who like to dine or play in a smoke-free atmosphere. It is not a "Right's" issue at all. There is nothing in the Constitutional Rights about smokers' rights or that they can harm others freely without abandonment. You bet you did strike a nerve of mine because I have seen first hand what working in a smoke filled bar/restaurant can do to an ordinarily healthy person. These bans are to protect the worker as well as the public from the inherent dangers that secondhand smoke offers. I have been on both sides of the fence but then realizing that I can go outside or wait an hour or two to light up. So put that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Musician. By the way as a musician (if that is what you are), smoke filled rooms are hard on the vocals.

Preventionist, I don't know of very many businesses that can take a loss of 20%. Secondary smoke in a well ventilated or separate area in merely a minor inconvenience and only to a few very outspoken people.

Rebecca, I doubt that the businesses are losing every single customer that smokes just because they are unable to smoke in that establishment anymore. I would assume it is a much lower figure of the people who can't handle waiting to smoke, or going outside to light up.

Preventionist/Prohibitionist: What's hard on the vocals is watching all the karaoke going into the rooms that formally hired bands but cut their entertainment budgets due to the smoking bans. Hard on the ears, too.

It is all about changing social norms. Our economy can only improve as more smokers quit. Don't tell me anything different. It has been studied, researched, and documented that smoking kills, causes injury and causes a monetary cost for everybody (including the 80% of nonsmokers). in fact it costs us $96 billion a year. Smoking sucks, tobacco companies suck, and most people who smoke wish they didn't.

Why is it that non smokers are expected and indeed will support a restaurant that allows smoking but smokers will not support those that do not allow smoking? The answer: Smokers have an addiction and they are vindictive. If they don't get their way they will punish you. If non smokers behaved like that, all bars and restaurants that allow smoking would be closed. Studies also show that most smokers would like to quit. Perhaps now is a good time to do that.

Smokers should feel free to keep smoking, as long as I can be free from paying for their sky-high medical costs. No matter where you stand on this issue, we ALL pay for smoking. While you may disagree with new ordinances, there are significant, well-designed studies that show a drop in ER visits after these bans, mainly due to fewer cardiac events. If you have been to the ER lately you know it's expensive, folks. These costs are some of the most robust public health data we have. I don't think I should have to pay for anyone's heroin or pot habit, either, and I sure don't want to pay for someone's smoking (yes, nicotine is a drug, albeit a legal one). Don't whine about taxes on cigs, either. Just quit like millions already have, and save yourselves and the rest of us the cost of treating you for something you refuse to treat yourself.

What the bar and restaurant owners need to do is file a lawsuit for conspiracy, fraud and racketeeering under the RICO laws, against the anti-smoking criminals, i.e., the American Cancer Society, RWJF, American Heart Association, et al. http://www.smokershistory.com/definitn.htm

I remember not so long ago that we were all exposed and thought that we were getting a good deal when the restaurant offered smoking or non-smoking section. Lets face it folks it's kind of like a peeing and non-peeing area in the local swimming pool. Smoke has no boundaries and goes where it can, along with all of those deadly chemicals. Ventilation systems cannot take out all of the harmful substances completely and as for the worker - well they are 4-6 times more likely to develop cancer than workers who work in non-smoking facilities. Remember when thinking about secondhand smoke - if you can still smell it then it is still toxic.

Carol - Your comment is very interesting - sick, but interesting. How can major health organizations which help millions of people be called "criminals", when the tobacco industry contributes to about 440,000 deaths annually? I guess smokers who pollute our air, inflate healthcare costs for everyone, and litter our communities are model citizens. You have a distorted perspective on life and you need professional help.