For Smokers Only

The following is an excerpt from

Honestly, Who Else Would Fund Such Research?
Reflections of a Non-Smoking Scholar

Michael L. Marlow

This piece is in pfd form and is 29 pages long. But trust me smokers, it is well worth the read.
For you rANTIS, you're banned from this thread.

Excerpt:

Econ Journal Watch,
Volume 5, Number 2,
May 2008, pp 240-268.

My involvement in our local smoking ban issue came about when my fellow
Cal Poly economist and Business School Dean Bill Boyes was contacted by a local
group to propose an economic study of the ban under a public health grant made
possible through state taxes on smokers. Bill thought this would be a good local
public-relations project for our school and suggested we work together because
he thought this policy issue was “right up my alley.” At first, I was not particularly
interested in pursuing a cost-benefit study of the smoking ban because I was writing
a public finance textbook and didn’t need the distraction. I also was hesitant
about getting involved in what could become a contentious issue within our fishbowl
town of about 40,000 people, and within the campus community. My first
suspicion was that many locals were unlikely to be appreciative of any costs we
uncovered since the local newspaper and public health groups were gushing about how progressive they were in pushing for the ban. Prior experience had taught
me that individuals who push for government expansion rarely enjoy learning of
attendant costs.

Part of our proposal was to collect and examine data on pre-ban accommodation
practices of local business owners. This seemed to me an interesting question
and necessarily an important part of any cost-benefit analysis of a smoking
ban. I thought that it was pretty hard to ignore that smoking-nonsmoking sections
were becoming commonplace in restaurants and that such accommodation was
virtually nonexistent 20 years previous. Another major method, though less obvious
to restaurant goers, is ventilation—in principle, a non-smoker could dine in
comfort while seated alongside a smoker provided that fans made sure that the
fumes never came her way. Ventilation is the secret to no-flush toilets in secluded
homes off the sanitation grid.

...snip

We also proposed to survey owners regarding profit changes following the
ban. I didn’t predict that all owners would lose, and in fact, thought most would
either be unaffected or somehow gain from a ban, since this was the first city to
ban smoking so fully, and so it made sense to me that the city had relatively few
smokers and thus little opposition. But, I thought that it was important to determine
how many would lose, even if it was a small number, because I don’t see
how their welfare could be unimportant. I was enthusiastic about researching the
Coase theorem and even wrote a five-page appendix applying it to smoking bans
in my externalities chapter. I pulled the appendix after receiving negative feedback
from my editors following outside reviewers who found it somewhat unsavory to
discuss smoking in this way.

Perhaps, we should have anticipated reaction to our proposal when we presented
it to the grants committee of about 7 individuals. I remember seeing quite
a bit of apprehension on their faces as I discussed the reason for collecting information
on the pre-ban accommodation practices of owners. When I explained
that we needed the knowledge to understand who would tend to lose or gain, they
looked at each other uncomfortably. Their facial expressions turned especially
unfriendly when I mentioned that owners who previously had many smoking customers
might suffer losses. We were then politely told: We already know the answers to
these questions. All owners benefit from the ban and so it would be a complete waste of money tocollect such data. A few days later, Bill Boyes informed me that they rejected our proposal and later I heard from another colleague of rumors that the grant committee
concluded that we did not understand the economics of smoking bans very well.

http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MarlowCha...

whew, i sure am glad i smoke and am not anti-tobacco!

It's well known that most drunks are cigarette smokers, so that type person and their ilk may not be happy with restrictions on smoking inside bars.

roffle wrote:

whew, i sure am glad i smoke and am not anti-tobacco!

No, you are pro-bans and anti-freedom, and that makes you a rANTI. You are BANNED.

It is well known that ALL rANTIS are BIGOTS. BIGOTS have murdered MILLIONS of innocent people, including children.

As one of the biggest BIGOTS on the forums, JC you are BANNED from this thread.

bdjunker wrote:

It is well known that ALL rANTIS are BIGOTS. BIGOTS have murdered MILLIONS of innocent people, including children.
As one of the biggest BIGOTS on the forums, JC you are BANNED from this thread.

Cigarette smoking has killed millions of people and made millions more ill, you dbjunker are a idiot.

The only idiot is JC, who thinks her initials gives her the right to be in charge of everyone's life. The only initials that actually pertain to JC is MYOFB!

bdjunker wrote:

No, you are pro-bans and anti-freedom, and that makes you a rANTI. You are BANNED.

thank you for that. it's actually what i was hoping for to fullfill the premise of this thread:

http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TC6...

as i stated here, you guys don't know how to categorize a smoker who doesn't oppose smoking bans. if you aren't able to categorize me, you can't point your finger at me. since i am not anti-tobacco, anti-smoking, or anti-smoker, how can you revise the pre-qualifications for antidom so that i can be included in your group of oppressors? it's simple: extend the definition of anti to also mean 'anti-freedom'. that's smart!

fwiw, i am not anti-freedom. i am actually totally all for freedom, but i still understand the basic concepts behind things like smoking bans, speed limits, speed cameras, seatbelt laws, and automobile liability requirements.

this must mean that any smoker who doesn't actively oppose any of those things is a rANTI.

is this incorrect?

Trust me rAWFULZ, you particularly are in the right category with the rest of the rANTIZ. Are you ready for the feds to enter your home? Because that's what you're going to get next. Or maybe you brown nose, thinkin' they'll leave you alone?

ROFLMAO@U

bdjunker wrote:

The following is an excerpt from
Honestly, Who Else Would Fund Such Research?
Reflections of a Non-Smoking Scholar
Michael L. Marlow

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

"Michael Marlow has a long term relation with Philip Morris as explained in the following incomplete list. Some of the linked documents became available after a settlement between tobacco companies and U.S. state attorney generals."

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
"Michael Marlow has a long term relation with Philip Morris as explained in the following incomplete list. Some of the linked documents became available after a settlement between tobacco companies and U.S. state attorney generals."

Again that so called unbiased crap from the site called sourcewatch run by two socialists. Look up Glantz on that site, No mention of his fraud or quackery as a matter of fact he is their hero.

Free America wrote:

<quoted text>Again that so called unbiased crap from the site called sourcewatch run by two socialists. Look up Glantz on that site, No mention of his fraud or quackery as a matter of fact he is their hero.

If the rANTIS actually read this paper, they will find that he, quite nicely, writes about his so-called ties to BT. Isn't it amazing that a rANTI ORG even considered him to perform their BIGOTED, BIASED STUDY?

roffle wrote:

<quoted text>
you guys don't know how to categorize a smoker who doesn't oppose smoking bans.

Sure I do, anyone who smokes or not who supports smoking bans are low life thieving antis who believe in community property while the real owner who invested their own money, time, & labor loses their livelihoods, income, businesses, meaning their constitutional private property rights. And, their chosen employees lose their jobs.

Ban supporters, smokers or not, think the world must bow down to what they believe and want regardless of their own at all cost to society and freedoms.

And KZ/Roffle/weiner, you yourself, smoker or not but a smoking ban supporter stated this horrible act on children
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TAV...

Smoker or not, you are an anti if you support smoking bans and have no respect for anything except your own selfish wants which resemble socialism

roffle wrote:

<quoted text>
thank you for that. it's actually what i was hoping for to fullfill the premise of this thread:
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TC6...
as i stated here, you guys don't know how to categorize a smoker who doesn't oppose smoking bans. if you aren't able to categorize me, you can't point your finger at me. since i am not anti-tobacco, anti-smoking, or anti-smoker, how can you revise the pre-qualifications for antidom so that i can be included in your group of oppressors? it's simple: extend the definition of anti to also mean 'anti-freedom'. that's smart!
fwiw, i am not anti-freedom. i am actually totally all for freedom, but i still understand the basic concepts behind things like smoking bans, speed limits, speed cameras, seatbelt laws, and automobile liability requirements.
this must mean that any smoker who doesn't actively oppose any of those things is a rANTI.
is this incorrect?

Don't know how to categorize you? I could care less if you smoke or not. If you're for the ban or are even OK with the ban, you're against freedom. What else is there to say. Smoker, non-smoker, anti, etc.... who cares. You're against individual business owners being allowed to run their own business. You're against private property rights. That's how you're categorized.

Just got back from driving around the country for a few weeks. Stopped at the Pipe Smokers Convention In St. Charles Ill. Would you believe they would NOT permit smoking inside at the convention, we were not even permitted to burn the tobacco in a dish to show the aroma. The committee people fought with the city for a month to get permission to smoke pipes at the show but they said NO, so they pitched a tent outside with some heaters and that was it. The dealers in the building could not demo there pipes inside the building..
OVER 5000 people and about 100 dealers showed up from all over the world to enjoy the show. You can bet they will not be back there again. Can you imagine the money lost to that area with hotel reservations, and all the money spend at restaurants. We have had shows in Vegas but they were getting too expensive, but it looks like we will go back. AC was also suggested but with the smoking ban there, we would probably get turned away also.. Went to one in England last year, they do have a smoking ban but gave us special permission for the show..

When smokers are smoking they take away freedom of everyone around them to breath smoke free air, that proves smokers hate freedom.

just candid wrote:

When smokers are smoking they take away freedom of everyone around them to breath smoke free air, that proves smokers hate freedom.

Stay focused! Smokers have the right to smoke in a business that permits smoking. How many times does that have to be explained to you? Smokers are taking away nobody's freedom. They are trying to protect the owners freedom. Antis are the freedom haters? Why?

Linda wrote:

Smoker or not, you are an anti if you support smoking bans and have no respect for anything except your own selfish wants which resemble socialism

this is actually not true. an anti is an anti-tobacco zealot. you can't change the definition of the term to make it easier to categorize those whom you feel are your oppressors. i fully support one's right to ignite tobacco products for inhalation purposes.

fluteman greg wrote:

Don't know how to categorize you? I could care less if you smoke or not. If you're for the ban or are even OK with the ban, you're against freedom.

this is untrue. i fully support freedom. as i said to linda, you can't just go widening the scope of your interpretation of the term 'anti' as soon as you find a person with a particular view you haven't been able to categorize.

no one on topix started playing the "anti-freedom" card until i came along. why? because i was a loose and fallen cog in your collective machine. you need me to be put in proper place in order for your little play-the-victim charade to work.

so answer this: what is the according-to-hoyle qualifition for anti-freedom? if one supports speed cameras, are they anti-freedom? if one supports laws against public nudity, are they anti-freedom? if one supports the illegalization of marijuana, are they anti-freedom?

i'd like to hear this.