![ilift the smoking ban in michigan ilift the smoking ban in michigan](https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/fb98362/2147483647/strip/true/crop/280x210+0+0/resize/1760x1320!/quality/90/?url=http:%2F%2Fmediad.publicbroadcasting.net%2Fp%2Fwfsu%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fcard_280%2Fpublic%2F201802%2Fcascades_park_evening.jpg)
Nobody talks about how those addicted to alcohol or opiates are subject to jail time but - the number of alcoholics and drug abusers seems to remain almost unaffected. It's more effective to eliminate the demand (market) for something - but finding effective means of eliminating (while helping) addicts of anything is soooo haard. No, it's far easier to give the appearance of 'controlling' something than it is to actually control it. Oh, can't do that? Why? This worked just fine on reducing marijuana use outside of homes. Want to stop the smoking habit altogether? Then eliminate the producers of cigarettes and tobacco crops. Well, go ahead and join the Ban-O-Mania crowd, you're in 'good company' with the likes of Mary Sue Ban It Coleman, et all. I see an effort on the part of to support the smoking ban. Lets see how a ban on alcoholic beverages goes over - the consumption of alcohol is certainly proven to pose hazards to health and safety. Opinion is influential and that's a good thing - but never is it considered that opinions are often unsupported and often go unquestioned by the same majority which holds any given belief. this law has also drastically improved the air quality in these establishments.' - Drastically improved? By what criteria? Oh, that's right - the opinion of the majority is the true criteria.
Ilift the smoking ban in michigan free#
Read, print out, and share the free 'Lies Behind The Smoking Bans' at Of course the researchers that discover this amazing fact usually charge the taxpayers $50,000 or so for their efforts, but hey, it's easy money, right? The trick they use to cover up the scam is simple: they don't say they're measuring 'smoke' : they say they're measuring 'Particulate Matter,' specifically PM 2.5 - which is, fundamentally, smoke.ĭon't be fooled by their word and statistical games. And guess what? There's less smoke in the air when no one is smoking. See the sort of games played in a VERY similar study a couple of years ago by Klein et al in Minnesota and analyzed in my several postings under Jacob Grier's article at:įinally, aside from games about economic impacts, note this statement at the end of the article: 'this law has also drastically improved the air quality in these establishments.' If you look up the studies that this claim is based on you'll find that they almost all simply measure the amount of SMOKE in the air of places before and after the bans. Check out their research grant proposal (if you're able to get hold of it) and see if they promised to deliver results showing the ban did no harm in order to get a the money. Then extend that to question how many of their other words and chosen numbers and formulae might be juggled in the same way. Look at that graph and then think about whether the words of the researchers are truly representing the picture of the findings. Statistically?significant,?since?none?of?the?coefficients?in?either?the?basic?or?the?extended?model? Then read the statement in the Report about that drop: 'In?fact?this?change?is?not?
![ilift the smoking ban in michigan ilift the smoking ban in michigan](https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.png)
Then look at Figure 7 to see the ENORMOUSLY clear drop in Keno sales. Reach her at (734) 623-2552, or on Twitter.Ĭlick to the 'Economic Impact Report' linked to in the article. “We commend Michigan bars and restaurants for their support in transitioning to a smoke-free environment as this law has also drastically improved the air quality in these establishments.”Īmy Biolchini covers Washtenaw County, health and environmental issues for. Haveman, director of the Michigan Department of Community Health said in a statement. Ron Davis Smoke-Free Air Law, bars and restaurants as a whole were not adversely affected,” James K. “It is important to note that while some establishments saw sales fluctuations after the passage of the Dr. The report detailed that there were both winners and losers in terms of economic consequences: Some restaurants did see increases in business and others saw less traffic. Helen Levy, Ph.D., led the study, which found that overall the ban did not have a statistically significant negative impact on businesses. Implementation of the ban brought widespread concern from bar and restaurant owners that it would be bad for business, according to the study. The smoking ban, signed into law in December 2009 and put into effect on May 1, 2010, made Michigan the 38th state to enforce such a ban in bars and restaurants. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan has shown bars and restaurants have not suffered an overall negative impact from Michigan's statewide indoor smoking ban that went into effect May 1, 2010.