It's settled: Bans rule!!!

Dr. Dorothy Hatsukami believes she has empirically proven that smoking bans in bars and restaurants reduces the risks associated with smoking for their employees. According to the article, she tested 24 non-smoking employees and found reduced levels of carcinogens. Seems to me that this is patently obvious. However, I am not sure 24 is a large enough sample. In fairness though, she probably had trouble finding non-smoking restaurant and bar employees. This is what I find to be disingenuous about this argument for smoking bans. Anyone with basic observational skills can look at the back door of any restaurant and see the employees throwing down heaters like they were about to be banned in total. I would like to see a survey about that. I bet you can find a lot more than 24 smokers for a study. Heck, you could probably exceed that total at a larger Champps.

Now, I do have to state that it's nice to be able to go out and not smell like stale cigarette smoke when coming home. I think this is the real reason that a ban was passed. It's all aesthetics. Non-smokers don't want to smell like that dirtbag they remember from high school who came into class late after having a smoke by the dumpster. I understand that. And, the proponents said all these people will be coming out of the woodwork and filling up bars and restaurants after the ban passed. Apparently this has not happened (I will look for numbers on this). My problem with smoking bans is this: if there was such a demand for this, you would think bars would voluntarily go smoke-free. And, you would certainly think no one would try to get around the ban. I have never believed that the ban proponents have given a rat's ass about bar employees. I really think it's all about the aesthetics...and power. I mustn't forget that part of the equation.

And always remember, no one put a gun to anyone's head and told them to work at any particular business in the first place.