How Smoking Bans Have Effected Business Owners
The introduction of smoking ban laws in various states across the United States needs to be re-examined. While the laws cannot be repealed entirely because of opposition from anti-smoking lobbyists, the laws do need to be altered. The smoking bans are causing many unseen problems and trample the rights of citizens by taking away the right to settle and harm business owners by lowering their revenue. Particularly affected by this ban are bars, taverns, and restaurants. According to the website WebMD, one out of every five American adults is a cigarette smoker (Hendrick, 2008). In pure numbers, that means there are 43.4 million smokers in the United States (Kane, 2009). In an economy that is already struggling, the decrease in profit caused by the ban could create the difference between a business surviving the recession or having to close its doors. More than thirty states now have smoking bans (United States, 2008). Fortunately, there are solutions that may allow a middle ground to be reached between those who oppose the law and those who support it.
Where the Loss Occurs
Bars lose some revenue in the lack of cigarette sales, but that only accounts for a small percentage of the loss. The main profit loss comes from the lack of add-on sales as well as fewer customers overall. In the case of bars, many smokers feel that a mountainous piece of their enjoyment of a night out requires their ability to smoke while doing other things, like playing pool. When faced with being unable to enjoy themselves as they wish, many simply do not go out. Concerning restaurants, people who smoke tend to linger over meals and drink more instead of rushing out to their cars for an after-dinner smoke. The ban brings about a distinguished gash of the income for many restaurants through extra food and beverage sales. If the smoker stays and relaxes with his dining group, then he will perhaps order dessert, snacks and beverages. There is obvious evidence that smoking bans lower the percentage of beer and alcohol consumption. The studies also clearly display a direct reduction in sales for restaurants and bar establishments in particular, which are caused by smoking bans. The banning laws have serious economic consequences for these types of businesses (Gallet & Eastman, 2007).
Most bar and restaurant owners feel slated to lose a large amount of their income – some bar owners are claiming an average of up to a 40% loss in sales across the country. However, some establishments report even higher losses. For most of these small businesses, it is the equivalent of taking a 40 percent cut on a paycheck for the same amount of hours of work each week (Reisinger, 2008).
Charities are Pinched
In Louisville Kentucky, even charities are feeling a pinch caused by the smoking ban. According to James Doolin, a man who runs a bingo-for-charity operation, attendance is down 30% since the ban was passed. The food and beverage sales at these events have plummeted because of the lack of attendance. Many other Bingo parlors in the area have just ignored the laws and fines that they have incurred because of it. They are hoping for positive response to pending lawsuits that put a question to whether the ban is constitutional (Schnyder, 2007).
Tourism Suffers
Even business owners in Hawaii, whose smoking patrons do not have to stand in the cold to abide by the law, are wondering if they are feeling a pinch from the ban. Tourism is down 6%, with an even higher concentration of loss in tourists from Japan. The Japanese tourism is down 12%. Because this loss followed closely gradual the smoking ban, coupled with the fact that Japan has a distinguished higher smoker rate than the United States, the tourism trade is wondering if they have isolated some of their clients (Berg, 2007).
Completely Unfair in Colorado
The smoking bans vary from place to state. Some have provisions that allow exceptions in the law. Casinos in Colorado reported a 2 million dollar loss during the first month of the institution of the smoking ban. The casinos claimed that 30% of their patrons smoke and they expected to see a continued downward trend in income (Casino, 2008). By June 1, 2006, the law had been amended to allow smoking in casinos, but continued to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Outraged business owners are currently fighting for what they feel are equal rights. In this state, small tavern owners claim to have lost 80% of their revenue and are prepared to display proof in court (Smoking ban, 2008).
Other Health Areas May Suffer from the Ban
In addition to the financial issues caused by the ban, it is suspected that the laws are causing other types of problems. A recent study will soon appear in the Journal of Public Economics concerning this issue. The study states that fatal accidents involving drunken driving increased significantly in states that had passed smoking bans after the bans were passed. It is theorized that the cause of this is smokers attempting to drive to establishments that allow both drinking and smoking. In many cases, the businesses are far away from the smoker’s home or the location where the smoker starts drinking (Study, 2008). Overall, the laws are causing more problems than they are creating solutions.
Unfair to Owners
Business owners invest large sums of personal money into a business. Many take out loans and mortgages to start or improve their businesses and obtain the “American Dream.” In addition to the obvious investments, business owners must adhere to structural codes, zoning, permits, licenses, inspections, and numerous other unseen costs which are enforced by the government that bite into profit margins. Ultimately, a business owner owns the business building and grounds in the same way a homeowner owns his own home. Owners of these establishments should be allowed to determine what activities are allowed inside these buildings, provided that inherent laws are not broken. The rights of those choices should be comparable to what people are allowed to do in their own homes. If a customer base is viewed as a “guest,” it would be the equivalent of whether or not a guest is allowed to smoke in an individual’s home. Some businesses, such as shopping malls, would ultimately choose against allowing smoking. Other businesses rely on their smoking customer base to provide a large piece of their income.
Ohio Business Owners Skirt the Law
In fact, many owners have taken exactly the “business as home” come in finding ways around the smoking ban in Ohio. These bars are claiming to be closed to the public for special private functions that range from fundraisers for a riding stable to celebrations of celebrity birthdays. The ban specifically excludes private functions, so bar and restaurant owners are using this loophole as an attempt to make up for lost business. The doors are locked during these events; however anyone who knocks on the door and asks to join the party is usually admitted with the understanding that they will be attending a charity event (Toledo Bars, 2004).
The bars were too reliant on the loophole, however, with the creation of “Taverns for Tots,” which was a private charity organization. Between 35 and 60 bars were participating in events with the club, when a federal judge closed it down because he felt it was a deliberate ploy to get around the smoking ban and was therefore not a legitimate exemption (Troy, 2004). In addition to private social functions, sure other establishments received protection from the ban in Ohio, but the exemptions are strict and few (Gaze Illustration 2).
The November 2, 2004 smoking ban was passed in Ohio by a slim margin of 51.4% in favor to 48.6% against it. As demonstrated by the aforementioned “private parties,” many businesses and smokers have continued to struggle against it since that time, trying to find a solution that will satisfy most parties involved (Vezner, 2004). Unfortunately for these businesses, loopholes will be discovered and restrictions will be tightened as time passes.
Strict Laws with a Variety of Law Breakers
However, bars and restaurants are not the only guilty parties of disobeying the law. There have also been numerous complaints about certain elementary schools, auto factories and even the humane society (McKinnon 2007). Apparently, there are many smokers who are quietly disagreeing with the ban and are simply choosing to ignore it.
Some Just Pay the Fine or Just Ignore It Altogether
Ohio state restrictions forbid so much as an ashtray either inside or outside the building and require all businesses to post no-smoking signs. Failure to comply with these codes can and will result in cumulative fines (Status of Ohio, 2006). Many restaurant and bar owners have simply refused to put up the unattractive signs. Several have also continued to provide ashtrays, sometimes discreetly, sometimes not (McKinnon, 2007).
Many businesses that would otherwise be affected by the law are instead choosing to ignore it or directly violate it. In Cleveland, Ohio, bar and restaurant owners are taking a more low-profile approach. Some spokespeople in the area feel that the law in not enforceable and they may be right. Two years after the ban, in Warren County, Ohio, not a single fine has been imposed. In Dayton, Ohio, only five percent of investigations have resulted in fines. The fines do not cover the enforcement costs and the state has to stay within budget for the program (After 2, 2008). Nick Falls, a local bar owner in Toledo, Ohio, refuses to police customers who smoke. He states “I don’t like country music, so I don’t go to country bars. If you don’t like smoking, don’t go to a smoking bar” (McKinnon, 2007).
Other areas of the country are more flamboyant in their rebellion. At The Wearisome Ant Tavern in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a big sign on the side of the building bears the slogan “Smoking. My business. My customers. Our choice” (Lawrence, 2007). At another nearby establishment in Colorado Springs, the owner has decided to stage a protest. Anyone who would like to smoke inside the bar is allowed to – provided that they pay a $1 donation to help pay any violation fines that are incurred if the bar gets caught allowing smoking. Fines in that area of the country start at $200 and go up to $500. These two bars and several others in the area have decided that they will fight every single ticket given for ban infractions that is written against them. In short, obeying the law is turning out to be more expensive for these business owners than breaking it would be (Lane, 2007).
However, some business owners may have taken the rebellion too far. One business owner in Colorado hung up a brand stating that the bar would continue to allow smoking in the establishment. This act, coupled with numerous violations that have been documented with the state of Colorado, may cause the business to lose its liquor license (Denny, 2009). Roar disobedience will ultimately catch up with the perpetrator in the end.
Frustration at the Law Spurs a Solution from Germany
Smoking bans are popping up all over the earth and are causing many of the same problems world-wide. Some small business owners react dramatically when faced with a law that will slice off a big portion of their revenue. A tavern owner in lower Saxony, Germany, took a dramatic approach in his solution to the smoking ban. He sawed three holes in the wall. These he deemed “smoking points.” The three holes are nick in a manner that reminds one of a site of stocks from the Middle Ages: one hole for the head and one for each hand. However, the patron who sticks his head through the hole is far from being restrained. The holes are carefully padded for comfort and allow the user to smoke “outside” without having to leave the warmth of the indoors. Hanging over the holes is a sign that bears instruction for their use (Restaurateur, 2008). While this act represents a humorous and harmless rebellion, most smokers would probably not be willing to stick their head through the wall for a smoke in the United States. In addition, some state laws had the forethought to require smokers to stay a distinct distance from a building (Set of Ohio, 2006). Most business owners in the United States do not react so flippantly when laws are passed, but instead try to find other creative, and often successful, solutions to the problem.
Automobiles are Still Fair Game
At least one business owner with an entrepreneur’s spirit decided to find away around the ban by making his business mobile. The creation of the Mobile Cigar Lounge Company in Tampa, Florida is truly inspired. Because there are no bans on smoking in vehicles, the company has created a bar and smoking lounge on wheels. The lounge is made from the rank of a trailer that has been completely customized inside. Leather seats and leaded crystal fixtures compliment the interior while a “cigarista” is present to provide mixed drinks and assist smokers in their choice of cigars. The posh atmosphere is extremely luxurious. It appears to be primarily marketed toward private parties and business meetings. Rental prices open at $475 per hour and that does include a small selection of mid-level cigars (Luxury, 2009).
There are a couple of downsides to this solution. The first jam is that there is no pool table, no dart board and no place to dance, which are things that some customers require in their drinking experience. The second problem with this solution is that the expense is unrealistic for the average bar patron. However, with some alterations, the business could work for a larger client base. For example, the bar could simply catch people up at their homes and take reservations until the bar was full. Unfortunately, most patrons might not like the thought of being stuck in a vehicle until the mobile bar is able to drop them off.
There are also several problems when considering this option from a business owner’s standpoint. The first is the immense expense of setting up and running the operation, including the expense of gas and a driver. A bar owner, could, theoretically, sell his land based business and trade the profit for one of these “bars on wheels,” however that is a big gamble.
The bright side with this option is that it might lessen drunk drivers, since the bar could impartial drop the drunken patrons off at home. Probably the biggest obstacle is the fact that it may be difficult to obtain a mobile liquor license. Even if an owner found a way to make this option work, there is a chance that new legislation could shut down the operation and the owner would be stuck with a bunch of equipment that was useless.
One final thing to consider with this solution is the anti-smoking lobbyists are already trying to keep a stop to this loophole. In Washington, legislation is being considered that would fine individuals who smoke in an automobile in which there are riders under the age of 18 present. This is but one step away from banning smoking in automobiles entirely (Nakayama, 2008).
Hospitality Proposes Ventilation
The hospitality industry in British Columbia suggests that bans are not notable as long as people are protected from the second hand smoke. The claim states that better ventilation is the solution to the predicament. The group in question has proposed engineered ventilation systems that will cut the second-hand smoke consumption of the average person to less than two cigarettes per year. A proposal has been submitted to the review board by hopeful bar and restaurant owners who fear the loss of income from the ban (Bars, 1999).
The problem with this option is that many places have already tried it without success. Ventilation systems are usually just not sufficient enough to remove the second-hand smoke. One of the reasons is because there may be more smokers present in an area than the system was designed for. In addition, problems are likely to arise when a system breaks down and the owner refuses to fix it, which is something that is a realistic possibility. However, there are some solutions that have shown indications of success.
California Heat
The first site to ban smoking in public places in the United States was California in 1998 (Smoking, 2009). As expected, California businesses began to adapt. Many bars have installed overhead heat lamps on patios. These are turned on when the weather turns chill. Some of the bars are like astronomical balconies. The roof has wide slats that absorb the heat lamps. Between the lamps are openings to the sky above. Somehow, the lamps keep the patrons comfortably warm at night when temperatures tumble. Unfortunately, this solution would only work in states that have naturally warmer climates or the heating bill would be unrealistically high. In addition, some states have specific laws stating that smoking areas cannot be attached to a building (State of Ohio, 2006). However, tropical or other warm weather states can build very attractive and successful outdoor additions that are currently satisfying all parties.
Iowa Continues the Remodeling Trend
Bar and restaurant owners across the country continue to scramble to secure ways around the ban that will allow their businesses to survive in an already harsh economy. In Iowa, many bar owners are installing giant windows in existing buildings that are kept open to create a “patio” that will allow the business owner to comply to state smoking regulations while preserving a customer base. In one particular case, a bar called “The Cabaret,” the manager claims that the fancy windowed extension and indoor renovations were mandatory if the business was going to stay open. He claims that the law had the ability to bankrupt the business if he had not found a solution. The bar spent a great deal of money installing new heating systems (Smoking Shacks, 2009). Heating a building that size in freezing temperatures must be an enormous expense, which illustrates how much money the bars must be losing from the smoking ban.
Some business owners hesitate at this solution, because of the investment required. A draw to give these owners more confidence would be to freeze the bans, guaranteeing that stricter laws would not be passed for a certain period of time. This would allow owners to weigh the costs and benefits of such a vast investment against a guaranteed amount of time in which they would be allowed to exhaust it. In addition, most of those who serve the ban seem satisfied with this solution (McPherson, 2008).
Licensing
Although ex-business owner Christa Farnum is a non-smoker, she is against infringing on the rights of business owners to make the rules in their own establishment. She venerable to own a sandwich shop in Michigan that closed two years ago which was non-smoking. The owners had decided to make the establishment non-smoking, but not because it was forced by law. Despite its non-smoking policy, the restaurant still provided ashtrays outside and a smoking balcony – two things that are now forbidden by some state smoking bans (State of Ohio, 2006).
She stated that she would never want to have that choice taken from others because operating a business is a difficult, expensive, and splendid thing. She went on to say that the current laws in effect make things difficult and further restrictions only bustle the risk of eliminating even more small businesses. She felt that a good middle ground would be a license, similar to a liquor license, which could be purchased for a fee from the region. Like a liquor license, the number of these permits could be limited by county based on population. That solution, she felt, should satisfy both sides. The non-smokers would have a site to go that would be smoke free and the smokers would have a place to like themselves also. The business might then balance out between the establishments (personal communication, January 20, 2009).
Sometimes Making a Plea Makes a Difference
A Maryland bar made an appeal to the location for a waiver from the smoking ban. The bar is situated near the state border and a 15 minute drive takes patrons to a different state where smoking in public places is detached legal. The bar was literally sitting empty, but for its employees. After four months of appeals and proving huge losses in revenue, the state of Maryland granted them a waiver. Unfortunately, the waiver expires in 2011, but the bar has been given respite for the time being (McPherson, 2008).
This solution will only work for a tiny minority. Giving waivers to everyone would defeat the purpose of the bans. Lawmakers and authority groups are unlikely to shun the laws for most businesses because then they are jeopardizing their own jobs and positions.
No such quarter has been given in Toledo, Ohio. A smoker need only cross the state line into Michigan to be allowed to smoke while drinking.
Virginia Makes a Stand
There are more concerns beyond those of bar and restaurant owners. In Virginia, the smoking ban law was effectively turned down recently. The reason that the Republican-dominated House of Delegates turned down the law was simple: Virginia farms tobacco. A law of this nature would seriously affect the incomes of the constituents of these lawmakers, so any laws passed regarding a smoking ban have to be considered carefully. Although lobbyists for the ban presented several versions of smoking bans, the result of their efforts composed resulted in decision that would mean no ban for Virginia residents (Kumar, 2008). When considering laws like smoking bans, the effects of these laws on the economy needs to be considered more carefully than what has historically occurred. States should recognize, not just to their own manufacturing and agriculture, but to those of other states that bring profit to the country overall.
Fighting City Hall
Microscopic business owners are banding together all over the country to fight smoking ban legislation. In addition to the groups in Colorado, there are other groups nationwide that are currently trying to find laws that will protect them from this ban (Reisinger, 2008). . Some, like “Freedom Fighters for All Citizens of Iowa” have become very active, holding public meetings in addition to using legal aid to fight the bans. The standpoint used by this group is that the smoking ban law is unconstitutional, because in Colorado casinos are still allowed to have indoor smoking while other businesses are not. Casinos receive special exclusion from the law (Denny, 2009).
In Nevada, a judge granted an injunction of the law for bars in Las Vegas. While smoking can still cause a civil violation for the smoker in the amount of $100, taverns and bars need only post no smoking signs and bewitch ashtrays. Casinos are still legal smoking areas, as they were unaffected by the smoking-ban laws (Nevada, 2007).
In Washington, an American Legion post has brought a lawsuit against the state. After being issued a violation and fine, the group decided it was time to fight the ban. The group feels that it is fighting for the freedom of the people of the United States (Lawsuit, 2006).
There is currently legislation in the Senate that will allow smoking in family owned businesses and another in the House of Representatives that would allow certain bars to be exempt from the law. Anti-smoking lobbyists, such as the American Cancer Society, are vigorously fighting this legislation and are in fact pushing for even stricter smoking laws (After 2, 2008). Legal officials may be able to find a balance through one of these proposals that will balance everyone’s rights: both that of the non-smoker to breath smoke-free air and the businesses who rely on the revenue that smoking bring in.
E-cigarettes: Making Everyone Happy for Now
A clever inventor has come up with what many feel might solve the problem from all sides. The product is called an e-cigarette. Early versions resembled the plastic casing on an ink pen. The more new version looks like a plastic cigarette that even lights up at the end. The product replaces the smoke with water vapors that flow through a nicotine cartridge, virtually eliminating smoke entirely while still delivering nicotine to the smoker. The hardcore smoker will continue to receive more satisfaction from this product than patches or gum because the product satisfies the oral fixation. Also satisfied is the need for the feel of the smoke in the smoker’s mouth. The water vapor strongly resembles the look and feel of smoke, but dissipates instantly. Trials have shown that patrons in bars and restaurants do not even know when one of these e-cigarettes, or “hydros,” are being primitive. The product is battery operated and rechargeable and contains no tar and a lot less chemicals. It delivers the nicotine that a smoker craves along with the feelings and actions associated with smoking. There is also no need for an ashtray, since there is no ash and nothing is burning. In addition, because no smoke is given off, the product is completely legal (Conneen, 2008).
One of the companies that manufacturers this product markets under the name “Crown 7″. The product is available in several styles to meet the needs of all smokers. Devices arrive in cigarette, cigar and pipe styles. The company claims that its product is smokeless, so the user’s garments are preserved from the smell of smoke. The cigarette sells for $74.95 in the United States. Orders are primarily filled through the internet. The product works by passing water vapor through a nicotine cartridge. The cartridges cost about $10 for a pack of 5 and each cartridge equals about 2 packs of cigarettes. This means that the cost for a carton’s worth of nicotine is about $10 when using the e-cigarette. This means a spacious savings for smokers when compared to $4.95 for one pack of Marlboros in Ohio (Personal communication, K&K Gas Station, 2009). To add to the package, the e-cigarette is reportedly much healthier for the smoker and those around him (Crown 7, 2009).
The nicotine delivered through each puff is almost twice that of normal cigarettes, so smokers often feel satisfied a miniature faster. In addition to the nicotine flavor, there are also designer flavors available for the cartridges (see illustration 3). The manufacturer is continuing to make current styles of smoking devices and cartridge flavors and is currently hoping to expand its business nationwide with retailers. The product has received a lot of attention; news groups from all over the country are featuring stories about the product (Crown 7, 2009).
The downside of the product will be that smokers will be puffing on a piece of plastic which will feel a small different. In addition, smokers will likely have to justify the product when using it in a new area. However, this solution unbiased might satisfy everyone involved. Naysayers of the product are likely to point to the fact that nicotine addictions are detached unhealthy. However, the key argument of supporters of the smoking bans seems to be the dangers of second hand smoke. This product solves the second hand smoke problem and provides a healthier alternative for the smoker as well. Only the individual smoker will be able to determine whether or not the e-cigarette is satisfying enough to use.
Final Thoughts
It is simply bad business to disallow an establishment to offer a smoking area to its employees and smoking customers. These bans are crippling to a falling economy in addition to taking away one more freedom of choice. Members of the public must ask themselves: where is the line between protecting public health and infringing on other’s rights? It seems that there must be a common ground that will allow everyone alive to to be content.
Many people, even non-smokers, feel that the smoking ban laws are freedom-hostile. These individuals feel that the laws not only infringe on the rights of people who smoke, but more specifically that the laws infringe on the rights of people to do business. One must ask where the legislation that is designed for an individual’s “own good” will stop. Yet, those in favor of the bans wish to further push the issue, even to encompass personal vehicles. These lobbyists will continue until cigarette usage becomes entirely illegal (After 2, 2008). Both sides must relent to some degree and find a middle ground where all can be satisfied. Some proposals seem outlandish, but some have solid logic slack them that may succeed in finding middle ground if only both sides of the argument will slightly bend.
References:
After 2 years, smoking-ban foes say law is unenforceable. (2008, December 8). Cleveland.Com. The Associated Press. Retrieved on January 24, 2009 from http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/after_2_years_smokingban_foes.html
Bars and restaurants offer alternative to smoking ban. (1999, November 23). Canada Broadcasting Channel. Retrieved on January 20, 2009 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/1999/11/23/bc_ventilation991123.html
Berg, Tabitha. (2007, March 14). Hawaii tourism slumps on the heels of smoking ban. eNews Channels. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from http://enewschannels.com/2007/03/14/enc942_195240.php.
Casino revenue falls in wake of smoking ban. (2008, February 20). Fox 21 Colorado Connection. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from http://www.coloradoconnection.com/news/news_story.aspx? id=98000
Conneen, Mike. (2008, April 29). Battery operated cigarettes challenge state smoking ban. Colorado Connection Fox 21. Retrieved on January 21, 2009 from http://www.coloradoconnection.com/news/news_story.aspx? id=128096
Crown 7. (2009). Crown 7 Products. Crown7.com. Retrieved on January 21, 2009 from http://www.crown7.com/
Denney, Brianna. (2009, January 21). CBS Channel KIMT, Iowa, Minnesota. Retrieved on January 24, 2008 from http://www.kimt.com/mostpopular/story/Fighting-Iowas-Smoking-Ban/BNJKWMfDUUuvpki4D7H9PA.cspx
Gallet, C., Eastman, H. (2007,November 26). The impact of smoking bans on alcohol examine. Retrieved on January 17, 2009 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W64-4R71DM3-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=90d3be17077afb172769f0cce6b81ef6
Hendrick, Bill. (2008). Smoking rate is declining in U.S. Web MD. Retrieved on January 17, 2009 from http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20081113/smoking-rate-is-declining-in-us
Kane, Andrea. (2009, January 9). If smoking is so bad for you, who still does it? CNN Health. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/09/who.still.smokes/
Kumar, Anita (2008, February 15). Hopes for public smoking ban are snuffed out. The Washington Post. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403061.html
Lane, Anthony. (2007, March 1). Bars rebel against smoking ban. The Gazette. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from http://www.gazette.com/onset? id=19674&template=article.html
Lawrence, Carol. (2007). The Dead Ant Tavern. [Photograph]. The Gazette News Colorado Springs, Co. Retrieved on January 24, 2009 from http://www.gazette.com/onset? id=19674&template=article.html
Lawsuit against smoking ban. (2006, July 28). Seattle Weekly. Retrieved on January 24, 2009 from http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2006/07/lawsuit_against_smoking_ban.php
Luxury for your event. (2009). Mobile Cigar Lounge Co. Retrieved on January 20, 2009 from http://www.mobilecigarlounge.com/index2.html
McKinnon, Julie M. (2007, June 3). Complaints pile up since Ohio’s smoking-ban enforcement began. Retrieved on January 13, 2009 from http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20070603/BUSINESS03/70603001
McPherson, Kelly. (2008, July 16). Maryland bars find ways around the smoking ban. WJZ-TV Baltimore, Maryland Channel 13 CBS. Retrieved on January24, 2009 from http://wjz.com/local/smoking.ban.2.773092.html
Nakayama, Yu. (2008, January 18). Bills would ban smoking when kids in the car. The Seattle Times. Retrieved on January 24, 2008 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004133934_smoking19m.html
Nevada voters claim victory in smoking ban lawsuit case. (2007, January 23). CBS Las Vegas Now. Retrieved on January 24, 2009 from http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp? S=5831079
Reisinger, Brian. (2008, October 30). Local bar owners estimate financial achieve of potential Weston smoking ban. The Wausau Daily Herald. Retrieved on January 16, 2009 from http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20081030/WDH0101/810300522
Schnyder, Mar, (2007, September 22). Wave 3 investigates how the smoking ban has affected bingo halls. Wave 3 NBC. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp? S=7077913&nav=0RZF.
Smarter solutions in shelters. (2009). Duo-gard.com Retrieved on January 20, 2009 from http://www.duo-gard.com/smoking.html
Smoking ban hurting shrimp taverns? (2006, August 26). KKTV.com. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/3743196.html
Smoking shacks let bars skirt Iowa ban. (2009). NBC DFW News. Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/_Smoking_Shacks__Let_Bars_Skirt_Iowa_Ban_All__National_.html
Spector, Haran. (2008, December 3). Ohio ranks 49th on air pollution; smoking rate up 3 percent. The Plain Dealer. Retrieved on January 17, 2008 from http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/ohio_ranks_49th_on_air_polluti.html
State of Ohio Chapter 3794: Smoking Ban. (2006, December 7, 2006). Ohio Revised Code, Lawriter Ohio Laws and Rules. Retrieved on January 17, 2008 from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3794
Study: Banning Smoking increases drunk driving. (2008, April). Fox News. Retrieved on January 16, 2009 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347751,00.html
Smoking bans and restrictions around the world. (2009). The Center for Disease Control. Retrieved on January 26, 2009 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-globalsmokingbans/index.html
Smoking Shelters. (2009). Gilmore-Kramer Company. Retrieved January 20, 2009 from http://www.gilmorekramer.com/more_info/smoking_shelters/smoking_shelters.shtml? OVRAW=smoking%20shelter&OVKEY=smoking%20shelter&OVMTC=standard&OVADID=4201389011&OVKWID=11512747511
Smoking Shelters. (2009). Portafab Modular Building Systems. Retrieved January 20, 2009 from http://www.portafab.com/smoking-shelters.shtml? utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=cpc
State of Ohio Chapter 3794: Smoking Ban. (2006, December 7, 2006). Ohio Revised Code, Lawriter Ohio Laws and Rules. Retrieved on January 17, 2008 from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3794
Toledo bars evade smoking ban. (2004, March 17). Toledo Talk. Retrieved on January 17, 2009 from http://www.toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/comments.pl/12/546
United States: public position smoking bans. (2008, February 29). State Health Facts. Retrieved on January 26, 2009 from http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp? cmp=49&cat=2&rgn=1&ind=86⊂=24
Vezner, Tad. (2004, November 4). Owners of bars/restaurants in Toledo, Ohio, mull new smoking ban. The Toledo Blade. Retrieved on January 16, 2009 from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-124095601.html
Related Posts
Filed under Proof Of Claim Bankruptcy by on Jan 24th, 2012. 