Smoking ban

(Redirected from Smoke-free) Law prohibiting tobacco smoking in a given space "Smoking bans" redirects here. For a list, see List of smoking bans.

Smoking bans, or smoke-free laws, are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, that prohibit tobacco smoking in certain spaces. The spaces most commonly affected by smoking bans are indoor workplaces and buildings open to the public such as restaurants, bars, office buildings, schools, retail stores, hospitals, libraries, transport facilities, and government buildings, in addition to public transport vehicles such as aircraft, buses, watercraft, and trains. However, laws may also prohibit smoking in outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, pedestrian plazas, college and hospital campuses, and within a certain distance from the entrance to a building, and in some cases, private vehicles and multi-unit residences.

The most common rationale cited for restrictions on smoking is the negative health effects associated with secondhand smoke (SHS), or the inhalation of tobacco smoke by persons who are not smoking. These include diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The number of smoking bans around the world increased substantially in the late 20th century and early 21st century due to increased knowledge about these health risks. Many early smoking restrictions merely required the designation of non-smoking areas in buildings, but policies of this type became less common following evidence that they did not eliminate the health concerns associated with SHS.

Opinions on smoking bans vary. Many individuals and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) support smoking bans on the basis that they improve health outcomes by reducing exposure to SHS and possibly decreasing the number of people who smoke, while others oppose smoking bans and assert that they violate individual and property rights and cause economic hardship, among other issues.

Rationale

Smoking bans are usually enacted in an attempt to protect non-smokers from the effects of secondhand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other diseases. Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries and other jurisdictions as public knowledge about these health risks increased.

Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards; cleanliness in places where food, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, or precision instruments and machinery are produced; decreased legal liability; potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs; reduced quantities of litter; healthier environments; and giving smokers incentive to quit.

Evidence basis

Main article: Passive smoking

Tobacco smoke in an Irish pub before a smoking ban came into effect on March 29, 2004

Research has generated evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung ailments such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma. Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%. An epidemiology report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), convened by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), says that the risk of coronary heart disease is increased by around 25–30% when one is exposed to secondhand smoke. The data shows that even at low levels of exposure, there is risk and the risk increases with more exposure.

A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens on account of tobacco smoke as active smokers. Sidestream smoke emitted from the burning ends of tobacco products contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium-210. Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in secondhand smoke than in mainstream smoke.

Scientific organisations confirming the effects of secondhand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Surgeon General of the United States, and the World Health Organization.

Air quality in bars and restaurants

Restrictions upon smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the CDC states that New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline. The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans were instituted.

A 2004 study showed New Jersey bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighbouring New York City, which had already enacted its smoking ban.

Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees. For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking restrictions, tests showed decreased levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to going smoke-free).

Public Health Law Research

In 2009, the Public Health Law Research Program, a national program office of the US-based Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, published an evidence brief summarising the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health. They stated that "There is strong evidence supporting smoking bans and restrictions as effective public health interventions aimed at decreasing exposure to secondhand smoke."

History

Public support

According to a 2018 Gallup poll, 25% of U.S. adults believe that smoking should be completely banned in the country, marking the highest level of support recorded by Gallup so far. Previously, the percentage of adults supporting this measure had fluctuated between 11% and 24% over nearly thirty years of Gallup's tracking.

Another poll conducted by Kantor, of over 28,000 Europeans in 2020, found that seven in ten people support banning the use of e-cigarettes or heated tobacco products in areas where smoking is prohibited, reflecting an increase of seven percentage points since 2017. Relative majorities also favor the other two control policies surveyed: banning flavors in e-cigarettes, with 47% support (up by 7 points since 2017), and introducing plain packaging for cigarettes, also supported by 47% (up by 1 point).

In all countries except Croatia, less than half of the respondents reported seeing people smoking inside the last time they visited a drinking establishment, such as a bar. Croatia stands out with 73% of respondents indicating this. In other countries, the proportions range from 47% in Cyprus, 45% in Slovakia, and 31% in Denmark, to only 3% in Sweden, 5% in Hungary, and 7% in Austria. These results indicate that despite the presence of indoor smoking bans across the EU, indoor tobacco smoke in drinking establishments remains an issue in several countries.

Effects

Effects upon health

Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. A 2009 report by the Institute of Medicine concluded that smoking bans reduced the risk of coronary heart disease and heart attacks, but the report's authors were unable to identify the magnitude of this reduction. Also in 2009, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that bans on smoking in public places were associated with a significant reduction of incidence of heart attacks. The lead author of this meta-analysis, David Meyers, said that this review suggested that a nationwide ban on smoking in public places could prevent between 100,000 and 225,000 heart attacks in the United States each year.

A 2012 meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was associated with a lower rate of hospitalizations for cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases, and that "More comprehensive laws were associated with larger changes in risk." The senior author of this meta-analysis, Stanton Glantz, told USA Today that, with respect to exemptions for certain facilities from smoking bans, "The politicians who put those exemptions in are condemning people to be put into the emergency room." A 2013 review found that smoking bans were associated with "significant reduction in acute MI risk", but noted that "studies with smaller population in the United States usually reported larger reductions, while larger studies reported relatively modest reductions".

A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was associated with approximately 10% reductions in preterm births and hospital attendance for asthma, but not with a decrease in low birth weight. A 2016 Cochrane review found that since the previous version of that review was published in 2010, the evidence that smoking bans improved health outcomes had become more robust, especially with respect to acute coronary syndrome admissions.

However, other studies came to the conclusion that smoking bans have little or no short-term effect on myocardial infarction rates and other diseases. A 2010 study from the US used huge nationally representative databases to compare smoking-restricted areas with control areas and found no associations between smoking bans and short-term declines in heart attack rates. The authors have also analyzed smaller studies using subsamples and revealed that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases.

Effects upon tobacco consumption

Smoking bans are generally acknowledged to reduce rates of smoking; smoke-free workplaces reduce smoking rates among workers, and restrictions upon smoking in public places reduce general smoking rates through a combination of stigmatisation and reduction in the social cues for smoking. The World Health Organization considers smoking bans to have an influence on reducing demand for tobacco by producing an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking bans are viewed by public health experts as an important element in reducing smoking rates and promoting positive health outcomes. When effectively implemented, they are seen as an important element of policy to support behaviour change in favour of a healthy lifestyle. However, reports in the popular press after smoking bans have been enacted often present conflicting accounts as regards perceptions of effectiveness.

One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after their smoking bans were implemented. In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after implementation of the ban. In the UK, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the nationwide smoking ban, compared with July 2006.

A 1992 document from Phillip Morris summarised the tobacco industry's concern about the effects of smoking bans: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects [sic] tobacco industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%–15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average."

In the United States, the CDC reported a levelling-off of smoking rates in recent years despite a large number of ever more comprehensive smoking bans and large tax increases. It has also been suggested that a "backstop" of hardcore smokers has been reached: those unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation. The smoking ban in New York City was credited with the reduction in adult smoking rates at nearly twice the rate as in the rest of the country, "and life expectancy has climbed three years in a decade".

In Sweden, use of snus, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since that nation's smoking ban.

Smoking restrictions may make it easier for smokers to quit. A survey suggests 22% of UK smokers may have considered quitting in response to that nation's smoking ban.

Restaurant smoking restrictions may help to stop young people from becoming habitual smokers. A study of Massachusetts youths, found that those in towns with smoking bans were 35 percent less likely to be habitual smokers.

Economic impact

Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoking bans. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with smoking restrictions and many have found that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses. Similarly, a 2014 meta-analysis found no significant gains or losses in revenue in restaurants and bars affected by smoking bans. In addition, such laws may reduce health care costs, improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labour in the community thus protected, making that workforce more attractive for employers.

Studies funded by the bar and restaurant associations have sometimes claimed that smoking bans have a negative effect on restaurant and bar profits. Such associations have also criticised studies which found that such legislation had no impact. Many bar and restaurant associations have relationships with the tobacco industry and are sponsored by them.

Australia

A government survey in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after smoking was banned inside them. However, a ClubsNSW report in August 2008 blamed the smoking ban for New South Wales clubs suffering their worst fall in income ever, amounting to a decline of $385 million. Income for clubs was down 11% in New South Wales. Sydney CBD club income fell 21.7% and western Sydney clubs lost 15.5%.

Germany

Some smoking restrictions were introduced in German hotels, restaurants, and bars in 2008 and early 2009. The restaurant industry has claimed that some businesses in the states which restricted smoking in late 2007 (Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Hessen) experienced reduced profits. The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (DEHOGA) claimed that the smoking ban deterred people from going out for a drink or meal, stating that 15% of establishments that adopted a ban in 2007 saw turnover fall by around 50%. However, a study by the University of Hamburg (Ahlfeldt and Maennig 2010) finds negative impacts on revenues, if any, only in the very short run. In the medium and long run, a recovery of revenues took place. These results suggest either, that the consumption in bars and restaurants is not affected by smoking bans in the long run, or, that negative revenue impacts by smokers are compensated by increasing revenues through non-smokers.

Ireland

The Republic of Ireland was the first country to introduce fully smoke-free workplaces (29 March 2004, after it was delayed from 1 January 2004). The Irish workplace smoke-free law was introduced with the intention of protecting workers from secondhand smoke and to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. In Ireland, the main opposition to the ban came from publicans. Many pubs introduced "outdoor" arrangements (generally heated areas with shelters). It was speculated by opponents that the smoke-free workplaces law would increase the amount of drinking and smoking in the home, but recent studies showed this was not the case.

Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "an evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national smoking ban in bars, restaurants, etc), despite claims that the smoke-free law was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with almost 440 fewer licences renewed in 2006 than in 2005."

United Kingdom

Smoking bans were enacted in Scotland on 26 March 2006, in Wales on 2 April 2007, in Northern Ireland on 30 April 2007, and in England on 1 July 2007. The legislation was cited as an example of good regulation which has had a favourable impact on the UK economy by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and a review of the impact of smoke-free legislation carried out for the Department of Health concluded that there was no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry despite initial criticism from some voices within the pub trade.

Six months after implementation in Wales, the Licensed Victuallers Association (LVA), which represents pub operators across Wales, claimed that pubs had lost up to 20% of their trade. The LVA said some businesses were on the brink of closure, others had already closed down, and there was little optimism trade would eventually return to previous levels.

The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), which represents some pubs and breweries across the UK claimed that beer sales were at their lowest level since the 1930s, ascribing a fall in sales of 7% during 2007 to the smoke-free regulations.

According to a survey conducted by pub and bar trade magazine The Publican, the anticipated increase in sales of food following introduction of smoke-free workplaces did not immediately occur. The trade magazine's survey of 303 pubs in the United Kingdom found the average customer spent £14.86 on food and drink at dinner in 2007, virtually identical to 2006.

A survey conducted by BII (formerly British Institute of Innkeeping) and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Associations (FLVA) concluded that sales had decreased by 7.3% in the 5 months since the introduction of smoke-free workplaces on 1 July 2007. Of the 2,708 responses to the survey, 58% of licensees said they had seen smokers visiting less regularly, while 73% had seen their smoking customers spending less time at the pub.

United States

In the US, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from no-smoking laws. However, a 2006 review by the U.S. Surgeon General found that smoking restrictions were unlikely to harm businesses in practice, and that many restaurants and bars might see increased business.

In 2003, New York City amended its smoke-free law to include virtually all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it, along with the California smoke-free law, one of the toughest in the United States. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the restrictions went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less secondhand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoke-free law, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses, and business tax payments. The president of the New York Nightlife Association remarked that the study was not wholly representative, as by not differentiating between restaurants and nightclubs, the reform may have caused businesses like nightclubs and bars to suffer instead. A 2006 study by the New York State Department of Health found that "the CIAA has not had any significant negative financial effect on restaurants and bars in either the short or the long term".

In Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, three restaurants received short-term exemptions from a local smoke-free ordinance in restaurants when they managed to demonstrate financial suffering because of it.

A bar received the first hardship exemption in Washington, D.C. Maryland also has provisions for hardship exemptions.

Effects upon musical instruments

Bellows-driven instruments – such as the accordion, concertina, melodeon and (Irish) Uilleann bagpipes – reportedly need less frequent cleaning and maintenance as a result of the Irish smoke-free law. "Third-hand smoke", solid particulates from secondhand smoke that are adsorbed onto surfaces and later re-emitted as gases or transferred through touch, are a particular problem for musicians. After playing in smoky bars, instruments can emit nicotine, 3-ethenylpyridine (3-EP), phenol, cresols, naphthalene, formaldehyde, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (including some not found in freshly-emitted tobacco smoke), which can enter musicians' bodies through the skin, or be re-emitted as gases after they have left the smoky environment. Concern about third-hand smoke on instruments is one of the reasons many musicians, represented by the New Orleans Musicians' Clinic, supported the smoking ban there.

Effects of prison smoking restrictions

Prisons are increasingly restricting tobacco smoking. In the United States, 24 states prohibit indoor smoking whereas California, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Kentucky prohibit smoking on the entire prison grounds. In July 2004 the Federal Bureau of Prisons adopted a smoke-free policy for its facilities. A 1993 U.S. Supreme Court ruling acknowledged that a prisoner's exposure to secondhand smoke could be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment (which would be in violation of the Eighth Amendment). A 1997 ruling in Massachusetts established that prison smoking bans do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Many officials view prison smoking bans as a means of reducing health-care costs.

With the exception of Quebec, all Canadian provinces have banned smoking indoors and outdoors in all their prison facilities. Prison officials and guards are sometimes worried due to previous events in other prisons concerning riots, fostering a cigarette black market within the prison, and other problems resulting from total prison smoking restrictions. Prisons have experienced riots when placing smoking restrictions into effect resulting in prisoners setting fires and destroying prison property, and persons being assaulted, injured, and stabbed. One prison in Canada had some guards reporting breathing difficulties from the fumes of prisoners smoking artificial cigarettes made from nicotine patches lit by creating sparks from inserting metal objects into electrical outlets. For example in 2008, the Orsainville Detention Centre near Quebec City, withdrew its smoke-free provision following a riot. But the feared increase in tension and violence expected in association with smoking restrictions has generally not been experienced in practice.

Prison smoking bans are also in force in New Zealand, the Isle of Man and the Australian states of Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, Northern Territory and New South Wales. The New Zealand ban was subsequently successfully challenged in court on two occasions, resulting in a law change to maintain it.

Some prisoners are getting around the prison smoking bans by producing and smoking "teabacco", which is nicotine patches or lozenges mixed with tea leaves, and rolled up in Bible paper. A forensic analysis of teabacco made from nicotine lozenges identified some potentially-toxic compounds, but concluded that teabacco made from nicotine lozenges may be less harmful than traditional tobacco cigarettes.

Compliance

The introduction of smoking restrictions occasionally generates protests and predictions of widespread non-compliance, along with the rise of smokeasies, including in New York City, Germany, Illinois, the United Kingdom, Utah, and Washington, D.C..

High levels of compliance with smoke-free laws have been reported in most jurisdictions including New York, Ireland, Italy and Scotland. Poor compliance was reported in Calcutta.

Criticism

Smoke-free regulations and ordinances have been criticised on a number of grounds.

Government interference with personal lifestyle

Critics of smoke-free provisions, including musician Joe Jackson, and political essayist Christopher Hitchens, have claimed that regulation efforts are misguided. Typically, such arguments are based upon an interpretation of John Stuart Mill's harm principle which perceives smoke-free laws as an obstacle to tobacco consumption per se, rather than a bar upon harming other people.

Such arguments, which usually refer to the notion of personal liberty, have themselves been criticised by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen who defended smoke-free regulations on several grounds. Among other things, Sen argued that while a person may be free to acquire the habit of smoking, they thereby restrict their own freedom in the future given that the habit of smoking is hard to break. Sen also pointed out the heavy costs that smoking inevitably imposes on every society which grants smokers unrestricted access to public services (which, Sen noted, every society that is not "monstrously unforgiving" would do). Arguments which invoke the notion of personal liberty against smoke-free laws are thus incomplete and inadequate, according to Sen.

In New Zealand, two psychiatrist patients and a nurse took their local district health board to court, arguing a smoking ban at intensive care units violated "human dignity" as they were there for mental health reasons, not smoking-related illness. They argued it was "cruel" to deny patients cigarettes.

Property rights

Some critics of smoke-free laws emphasise the property rights of business owners, drawing a distinction between nominally public places (such as government buildings) and privately owned establishments (such as bars and restaurants). Citing economic efficiency, some economists suggest that the basic institutions of private property rights and contractual freedom are capable of resolving conflicts between the preferences of smokers and those who seek a smoke-free environment, without government intrusion.

Legality of smoke-free regulations

Businesses affected by smoke-free regulations have filed lawsuits claiming that these are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. In the United States, some cite unequal protection under the law while others cite loss of business without compensation, as well as other types of challenges. Some localities where hospitality businesses filed lawsuits against the state or local government include Nevada, Montana, Iowa, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, South Carolina, and Hawaii, though none have succeeded.

Smoke-free laws may move smoking elsewhere

Restrictions upon smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. This can result in non-smokers passing through these doorways getting exposed to more secondhand smoke rather than less. Many jurisdictions that have restricted smoking in enclosed public places have extended provisions to cover areas within a fixed distance of entrances to buildings.

The former UK Secretary of State for Health John Reid claimed that restrictions upon smoking in public places may lead to more people smoking at home. However, both the House of Commons Health Committee and the Royal College of Physicians disagreed, with the former finding no evidence to support Reid's claim after studying Ireland, and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.

Connection to drunk driving fatalities

In May 2008, research published by Adams and Cotti in the Journal of Public Economics examined statistics of drunken-driving fatalities and accidents in areas where smoke-free laws have been implemented in bars and found that fatal drunken-driving accidents increased by about 13%, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county of 680,000. They speculate this could be caused by smokers driving farther away to jurisdictions without smoke-free laws or where enforcement is lax.

Effects of funding on research literature

As in other areas of research, the effect of funding on research literature has been discussed with respect to smoke-free laws. Most commonly, studies which found few or no positive and/or negative effects of smoke-free laws and which were funded by tobacco companies have been delegitimised because of the obvious conflict of interest.

Professor of Economics at the California State Polytechnic University-San Luis Obispo, Michael L. Marlow, defended "tobacco-sponsored" studies arguing that all studies merited "scrutiny and a degree of skepticism", irrespective of their funding. He wished for the basic assumption that every author were "fair minded and trustworthy, and deserves being heard out" and for less attention to research funding when evaluating the results of a study. Marlow suggests that studies funded by tobacco companies are viewed and dismissed as "deceitful", i.e. as being driven by (conscious) bad intention.

Alternatives

Incentives for voluntarily smoke-free establishments

During the debates over the Washington, DC, smoke-free law, city council member Carol Schwartz proposed legislation that would have enacted either a substantial tax credit for businesses that chose to voluntarily restrict smoking or a quadrupling of the annual business license fee for bars, restaurants and clubs that wished to allow smoking. Additionally, locations allowing smoking would have been required to install specified high-performance ventilation systems.

Ventilation

Critics of smoke-free laws have suggested that ventilation is a means of reducing the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. A tobacco industry-funded study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, published in the Building Services Journal suggested that "ventilation is effective in controlling the level of contamination", although "ventilation can only dilute or partially displace contaminants and occupational exposure limits are based on the 'as low as reasonably practicable' principle".

Some hospitality organisations have claimed that ventilation systems could bring venues into line with smoke-free restaurant ordinances. A study published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found one establishment with lower air quality in the non-smoking section, due to improperly installed ventilation systems. They also determined that even properly functioning systems "are not substitutes for smoking bans in controlling environmental smoke exposure".

The tobacco industry has focused on proposing ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free laws, though this approach has not been widely adopted in the U.S. because "in the end, it is simpler, cheaper, and healthier to end smoking". The Italian smoke-free law permits dedicated smoking rooms with automatic doors and smoke extractors. Nevertheless, few Italian establishments are creating smoking rooms due to the additional cost.

A landmark report from the U.S. Surgeon General found that even the use of elaborate ventilation systems and smoking rooms fail to provide protection from the health hazards of secondhand smoke, since there is "no safe level of secondhand smoke".

References

"Smokefree legislation consultation response, The Institute of Public Health in Ireland". Archived from the original on 8 October 2007. Retrieved 5 September 2006.
^ "New health bill will ban smoking in majority of workplaces". www.direct.gov.uk. 28 October 2005. Archived from the original on 9 May 2007. (UK Health Secretary: The smoking ban "is a huge step forward for public health and will help reduce deaths from cancer, heart disease and other smoking related diseases")
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; First international treaty on public health, adopted by 192 countries and signed by 168. See in particular Article 8 Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke.
Boyle, P (2003). "European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: Third version (2003)". Annals of Oncology. 14 (7): 973–1005. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdg305. PMID 12853336.
Sasco AJ, Secretan MB, Straif K (August 2004). "Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of recent epidemiological evidence". Lung Cancer. 45 (Suppl 2): S3–9. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.07.998. PMID 15552776.
Nield-Gehrig, Jill S.; Willmann, Donald E. Patient Assessment Tutorials: A Step-by-Step Procedures Guide for the Dental Hygienist. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Jerry Markon; Renae Merle (13 April 2004). "Disparity in Protecting Food Service Staff from Secondhand Smoke Shows Need for Comprehensive Smoke-Free Policies, Say Groups" (Press release).
Glossary: Sidestream smoke
"Involuntary smoking". Retrieved 15 July 2006.
Ferri ES, Baratta EJ (February 1966). "Polonium 210 in tobacco, cigarette smoke, and selected human organs". Public Health Reports. 81 (2): 121–7. doi:10.2307/4592662. JSTOR 4592662. PMC 1919781. PMID 4954992.
Schick S, Glantz S (December 2005). "Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke". Tobacco Control. 14 (6): 396–404. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.011288. PMC 1748121. PMID 16319363.
Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke Archived 5 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine: A monograph from the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Retrieved 6 August 2007.
Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 6 August 2007.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke. From the 11th Report on Carcinogens of the National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 6 August 2007. Archive
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Dated 27 June 2006. Retrieved 6 August 2007.
Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking: A monograph of the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. Retrieved 6 August 2007.
Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC) (12 November 2004). "Indoor Air Quality in Hospitality Venues Before and After Implementation of a Clean Indoor Air Law --- Western New York, 2003". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 53 (44): 1038–1041. PMID 15538318.
"Study Finds That New Jersey Bars and Restaurants Have Nine Times More Air Pollution than Those in Smoke-Free New York". Archived from the original on 23 February 2006.
Nina Athey-Pollard (16 March 2006). "Smoking ban leads to healthier bar staff". Chemical Science. RSC Publishing.
Ellingsen DG, Fladseth G, Daae HL, Gjølstad M, Kjaerheim K, Skogstad M, Olsen R, Thorud S, Molander P (March 2006). "Airborne exposure and biological monitoring of bar and restaurant workers before and after the introduction of a smoking ban". Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 8 (3): 362–8. doi:10.1039/b600050a. PMID 16528420.
Workplace Smoking Bans and Restrictions, Public Health Law Research 2009 Archived 14 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine
Smith, Kyle (19 December 2010). "Could smoking become extinct?". The New York Post. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
Lader, Malcolm Harold; Henningfield, Jack E.; Martin Jarvis (1985). Nicotine, an old-fashioned addiction. London: Burke Publishing. pp. 96–8.
Lader, Malcolm Harold; Henningfield, Jack E.; Martin Jarvis (1985). Nicotine, an old-fashioned addiction. London: Burke Publishing. pp. 96–8. ISBN 978-0-222-01216-6.
^ Cutler, Abigail (January 2007). "The ashtray of history". The Atlantic. Retrieved 1 March 2017.
Romaniello, Matthew P.; Starks, Tricia (2009). "Tabak: An Introduction". In Romaniello, Matthew; Starks, Tricia (eds.). Tobacco in Russian History and Culture: The Seventeenth Century to the Present. Routledge Studies in Cultural History. New York: Routledge (published 2011). pp. 1–2. ISBN 9781135842895. Retrieved 30 April 2019. The Russian prohibition lasted almost the entire seventeenth century, staying in place for seventy years, longer than anywhere else in the world. Russia's reaction to tobacco was unique. While most countries banned tobacco upon its arrival, they legalized it shortly thereafter, generally less than ten years after the initial prohibition which makes Russia's seventy-year-long ban surprising.
Proctor RN (Fall 1997). "The Nazi war on tobacco: ideology, evidence, and possible cancer consequences". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 71 (3): 435–88. doi:10.1353/bhm.1997.0139. PMID 9302840. S2CID 39160045.
Klioutchkine, Konstantine (2009). "'I Smoke, Therefore I Think': Tobacco as Liberation in Nineteenth-Century Literature and Culture". In Romaniello, Matthew; Starks, Tricia (eds.). Tobacco in Russian History and Culture: The Seventeenth Century to the Present. Routledge Studies in Cultural History. New York: Routledge (published 2011). p. 94. ISBN 9781135842895. Retrieved 30 April 2019. When in the spirit of liberal reforms the government lifted the ban on smoking in the streets in 1865, this deregulation engaged the longstanding association between smoking and individual freedom.
"Law School / Old Government House" (PDF). Wellington Architecture Week. 2–8 October 2006. p. 17. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 July 2011. Retrieved 16 March 2011.
Proctor RN (2001). "Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger's forgotten tobacco epidemiology and the Nazi quest for racial purity". International Journal of Epidemiology. 30 (1): 31–34. doi:10.1093/ije/30.1.31. PMID 11171846.
Clough JD, Lewis EJ, Lachin JM (1996). "Treatment protocols of the lupus nephritis collaborative study of plasmapheresis in severe lupus nephritis. The Lupus Nephritis Collaborative Study Group". Progress in Clinical and Biological Research. 337 (7070): 301–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1450. PMC 2352989. PMID 8973234.
Daragan K, Fisher S, Keane D, Lattanzio T, Laufer D, Pontarelli J, Trach B, Walls T (30 June 1994). "Preemption/Accommodation presentation". Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. University of California at San Francisco. Archived from the original on 16 October 2007. Retrieved 23 November 2006.
"Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act – Freedom to Breathe". Minnesota Department of Health. Archived from the original on 22 December 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2008.
Martiga Lohn (13 May 2007). "Minnesota lawmakers approve smoking ban". Boston Globe. Associated Press.
^ Cummings, Judith (4 April 1987). "BEVERLY HILLS SMOKING BAN CLEARS AIR BUT ASH TRAYS STAY". The New York Times.
David E. Garth (29 January 2001). "Letter to Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smokefree Legislation". Tobacco.org. Archived from the original on 15 March 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2007.
"Smoking out in Los Gatos". Lodi News-Sentinel. Associated Press. 8 October 1991. Retrieved 1 January 2017 – via Google News.
Louis H. Mascotti; Peter A. Creticos, The effects of a ban on smoking in public places in San Luis Obispo, California (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 15 May 2013
"How many Smokefree Laws?" (PDF). American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. 6 October 2006. Retrieved 23 November 2006.
"Tobacco Free Ireland" (PDF). Department of Health. 7 June 2013.
"2006 New York Laws: New York City Administrative Code(NEW) : (17-501 - 17-514) Smoke-free Air Act".
"The Newest New York City Real Estate Laws That Property Owners and Occupants Must Know in 2018". 16 January 2018.
Smiley, Colneth, Jr., "Puffers fuming over planned ban" Archived 2 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Boston Herald, Sunday, 31 January 2010
"*** NORMATTIVA ***". www.normattiva.it. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
"L. 3/2003". www.camera.it. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
That was part of a wider law. Smoke provisions are contained in art. 51
Ministry of Health (15 September 2005). "Smokefree Law in New Zealand". moh.govt.nz. Retrieved 24 March 2011.
"Norwegians ban smoking in bars". BBC News. 1 June 2004. Archived from the original on 26 February 2008. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
"Smoking restrictions in Norway". Innovation Norway. 7 August 2008. IS-1275 E. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
Norway's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants – A review of the first year (PDF) (Report). Directorate for Health and Social Affairs. May 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
"Scotland begins pub smoking ban". BBC News. 26 March 2006. Retrieved 4 April 2014.
Roxby, Philippa (1 July 2012). "Smoking ban's impact five years on". BBC News. Retrieved 4 April 2014.
"[ Explained ] The Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition Of Advertisement And Regulation Of Trade And Commerce, Production, Supply And Distribution) Act, 2003". Nyaaya.in. Archived from the original on 13 January 2017. Retrieved 10 January 2017.
"AFP: Nepal to ban smoking in public places". Agence France-Presse. 1 June 2010. Archived from the original on 23 January 2014.
"Official publication of the law" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 November 2013. Retrieved 10 November 2017.
"Turkey expands curbs on smoking". BBC News. 19 May 2008.
"Smoking Ban Announced at Plage Lumière, Provence, France". The Global Herald. 27 August 2011. Archived from the original on 7 September 2011. Retrieved 29 August 2011.
"Costa Rica's strict anti-smoking laws". Retrieved 8 February 2022.
"One in Four Americans Support Total Smoking Ban". Gallup.com. 23 July 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2024.
"Attitudes of Europeans towards tobacco and electronic cigarettes". europa.eu. Retrieved 22 June 2024.
"Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence". Institute of Medicine. 2009. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
Blue, Laura (30 October 2012). "Smoke-Free Laws Are Saving Lives". Time. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
Meyers DG, Neuberger JS, He J (September 2009). "Cardiovascular effect of bans on smoking in public places: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 54 (14): 1249–55. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.022. PMID 19778665.
Tamkins, Theresa (22 September 2009). "Big drop in heart attacks after smoking bans, studies say". CNN. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
Tan CE, Glantz SA (October 2012). "Association between smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases: a meta-analysis". Circulation. 126 (18): 2177–83. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.121301. PMC 3501404. PMID 23109514.
Szabo, Liz (29 October 2012). "Smoking bans cut number of heart attacks, strokes". USA Today. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
Lin H, Wang H, Wu W, Lang L, Wang Q, Tian L (May 2013). "The effects of smoke-free legislation on acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMC Public Health. 13: 529. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-529. PMC 3671962. PMID 23721370.
Been JV, Nurmatov UB, Cox B, Nawrot TS, van Schayck CP, Sheikh A (May 2014). "Effect of smoke-free legislation on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Lancet. 383 (9928): 1549–60. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60082-9. PMID 24680633. S2CID 8532979.
"Smoking bans cut asthma and premature births by 10%, study says". BBC News. 28 March 2014. Retrieved 4 September 2015.
Siddique, Haroon (4 February 2016). "Smoking bans reduce harm from passive smoking, study finds". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
Frazer K, Callinan JE, McHugh J, van Baarsel S, Clarke A, Doherty K, Kelleher C (February 2016). "Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016 (2): CD005992. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005992.pub3. PMC 6486282. PMID 26842828.
Shetty KD, DeLeire T, White C, Bhattacharya J (2010). "Changes in U.S. hospitalization and mortality rates following smoking bans" (PDF). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 30 (1): 6–28. doi:10.1002/pam.20548. PMID 21465828. S2CID 7182716.
Evans, et al. (1999). "Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking?" (PDF). The American Economic Review. 89 (4): 728–747. doi:10.1257/aer.89.4.728. JSTOR 117157. S2CID 153512752.
"Do Smoking Bans Really Get People to Quit?". ABC News. Retrieved 22 June 2023.
"WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 6 June 2008. Retrieved 17 June 2009.
Eva Langlands (15 October 2006). "Cigarette sales up 5% despite smoking ban". The Times. London. Retrieved 7 April 2010.
Pagnamenta, Robin (21 August 2007). "Cigarette sales drop 7% in a month". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 7 April 2010.
BBC Cigarette sales 'slump after ban' 2 October 2007
John Heironimus (21 January 1992). "Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence". Retrieved 26 December 2006.
Marc Kaufman (9 November 2007). "Decades-Long U.S. Decrease in Smoking Rates Levels Off". The Washington Post.
Michael Sherer (21 October 2013). "Michael Bloomberg Wants To Be Mayor of the World". Time. pp. 20–31.
(sv) SVD: Folkhälsoinstitutet: Snus ger cancer
BBC News A fifth of smokers 'plan to quit' 8 March 2006
Restaurant smoking bans stop teens getting the habit New Scientist Issue 2655, 10 May 2008, page 4
Siegel M, Albers AB, Cheng DM, Hamilton WL, Biener L (May 2008). "Local restaurant smoking regulations and the adolescent smoking initiation process: results of a multilevel contextual analysis among Massachusetts youth". Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 162 (5): 477–83. doi:10.1001/archpedi.162.5.477. PMC 2948204. PMID 18458195.
Eriksen M, Chaloupka F (2007). "The economic impact of clean indoor air laws". CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 57 (6): 367–78. doi:10.3322/CA.57.6.367. PMID 17989131.
Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, Glantz S (March 2003). "Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry". Tobacco Control. 12 (1): 13–20. doi:10.1136/tc.12.1.13. PMC 1759095. PMID 12612356.
Cornelsen L, McGowan Y, Currie-Murphy LM, Normand C (May 2014). "Systematic review and meta-analysis of the economic impact of smoking bans in restaurants and bars". Addiction. 109 (5): 720–7. doi:10.1111/add.12486. PMID 24529192.
Barendregt JJ, Bonneux L, van der Maas PJ (October 1997). "The health care costs of smoking" (PDF). The New England Journal of Medicine. 337 (15): 1052–7. doi:10.1056/NEJM199710093371506. hdl:1765/59780. PMID 9321534.
"Economic impacts" Tavern League of Wisconsin (broken link)
Dearlove JV, Bialous SA, Glantz SA (June 2002). "Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places". Tobacco Control. 11 (2): 94–104. doi:10.1136/tc.11.2.94. PMC 1763854. PMID 12034999.
"No smoke signals a boom for pubs, clubs". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2 September 2007. Retrieved 1 September 2007.
"DEADLINK". The Australian. Archived from the original on 27 April 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2010.
Germany's Smoking Ban Spreads Through States, Deutsche Welle, 14 January 2007
Ahlfeldt GM, Maennig W (2009). "Impact of Non-Smoking Ordinances on Hospitality Revenues: The Case of Germany" (PDF). Hamburg Contemporary Economic Discussion Paper No. 26. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1520573. hdl:10419/42235. S2CID 41821350. SSRN 1520573.
Carroll, Rory (29 March 2024). "Ireland's smoking ban 20 years on: How an unheralded civil servant triumphed against big tobacco". The Guardian.
Hyland A, Higbee C, Hassan L, Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM, Hastings G (February 2008). "Does smoke-free Ireland have more smoking inside the home and less in pubs than the United Kingdom? Findings from the international tobacco control policy evaluation project". European Journal of Public Health. 18 (1): 63–5. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckm054. PMID 17569698.
Lister, David (27 February 2007). "Rural pubs will suffer from smoking ban". The Times. London. Retrieved 7 April 2010.
"Sunday 26 March 2006 – clearing the air for a healthier Scotland" (PDF). Clearing the Air. Scottish Government. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 April 2006.
"Third of pubs 'not ready for ban'". BBC News. 2 March 2007. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
"Better regulation, Better Benefits: Getting the Balance Right. Case Studies" (PDF). Department of Business Innovation and Skills. October 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2012. Retrieved 14 February 2012.
"The impact of smokefree legislation in England: evidence review" (PDF). Department of Health. March 2011. Retrieved 14 February 2012.
"ic Wales (icwales.icnetwork.co.uk)".
Pub beer sales slump to low point 20 November 2007, BBC News
Smoke Ban Fails To Boost Pub Meal Sales 26 November 2007, SKY News
Smoking ban 'costs pub takings' 17 December 2007, BBC News
"The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General". Archived from the original on 3 July 2006. Retrieved 27 June 2006.
"Richard Roesler: Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke". CNN. Archived from the original on 13 July 2006. Retrieved 27 June 2006.
Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says Archived 21 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine 29 March 2003, The New York Times
Mark Engelen, Matthew Farrelly & Andrew Hyland: The Health and Economic Impact of New York's Clean Indoor Air Act. July 2006, p. 21
Janice Kayser (16 January 2008). "Hector's wants longer exemption". WauwatosaNOW.com. Archived from the original on 6 February 2008.
"D.C. Grants First Exemption to Smoking Ban". WJLA/NewsChannel 8. 22 October 2007. Archived from the original on 24 October 2007.
Rebecca McClay (11 January 2008). "Smoking ban fires up debate". The Gazette. Gaithersburg, MD. Archived from the original on 31 January 2008.
Haw SJ, Gruer L (September 2007). "Changes in exposure of adult non-smokers to secondhand smoke after implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland: national cross sectional survey". BMJ. 335 (7619): 549. doi:10.1136/bmj.39315.670208.47. PMC 1976488. PMID 17827485.
"Clearing the Air". Archived from the original on 20 November 2015. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
Polito, John R. "Prison Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Cessation and Nicotine Cessation". WhyQuit.com. Retrieved 23 May 2009.
Young, Christie Getto (20 April 2009). "100% SMOKEFREE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES" (PDF). American NonSmokers' Rights Foundation. Retrieved 23 May 2009.
Zoroya, Gregg (21 July 2004). "Smoking bans spread to prisons". USA TODAY. Retrieved 23 May 2009.
"HELLING et al. v. McKINNEY". Supreme Court collection. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 23 May 2009.
^ Young, Christie Getto. "Prison smoking ban is not cruel and unusual punishment". Tobacco Control Resource Center, Northeastern University. Archived from the original on 16 November 2010. Retrieved 23 May 2009.
Agar, John (31 January 2009). "State's prison smoking ban to save health-care costs, end prisoner 'luxury'". Grand Rapids News. The Grand Rapids Press. Retrieved 23 May 2009.
samantha (14 December 2004). "Ban Damage: Prison Ban Casualty". The Smokers Club. Archived from the original on 16 July 2011.
Mike Harman (11 February 2008). "Prisoner riot reverses smoking ban". libcom.org.
Koubaridis, Andrew (24 December 2012). "Prison smokes ban ruled unlawful". The New Zealand Herald.
"Tobacco victory goes up in a puff of smoke". The New Zealand Herald. 4 July 2013. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
Puljević C, Coomber R, Kinner SA, De Andrade D, Mitchell C, White A, Cresswell SL, Bowman J (2018). "'Teabacco': Smoking of nicotine-infused tea as an unintended consequence of prison smoking bans". Drug and Alcohol Review. 37 (7): 912–921. doi:10.1111/dar.12848. hdl:11343/284181. PMID 30051520. S2CID 51722419.
Mitchell, Courtney; Puljević, Cheneal; Coomber, Ross; White, Alan; Cresswell, Sarah L.; Bowman, Jasper; Kinner, Stuart A. (2019). "Constituents of "teabacco": A forensic analysis of cigarettes made from diverted nicotine replacement therapy lozenges in smoke-free prisons". Drug Testing and Analysis. 11 (1): 140–156. doi:10.1002/dta.2471. hdl:10072/382912. PMID 30109771. S2CID 52004967.
AFP: Dutch cafe owners rally against smoking ban
"Waiting to inhale", The New York Times, 4 January 2004 See also: "Lighting-up time: Big Apple meets Big Smoke," The Times, 1 April 2005. See also "Gangsters will be the real winners in smoking ban," Scottish Daily Record, 7 January 2005. "Smoked out?" The Buffalo News, 18 February 2004."N.Y. restaurants cutting trans fat from menus," The Washington Times, 6 December 2006. "The Guide to the Guides," The Observer (United Kingdom), 30 January 2005. "A year after New York smoking ban, debate still rages over effects," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 31 March 2004. "Late Night Cracks in City's Ban," New York Post, 4 March 2004. "On The Run," The New York Times, 8 June 2003.
Connolly, Kate (19 January 2008). ""'Nazi' claim as Germans rebel over smoking ban," The Observer, 20 January 2008". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 7 April 2010. Theile, Merlind (11 January 2008). ""German Don Quixotes Tilt against Smoking Ban", Der Spiegel, 11 January 2008". Spiegel Online.
Eric Petersen, "Three Schaumburg businesses violate new smoking ban," The Arlington Heights Daily Herald, March 2007 See also: "Smoking ban holds up, despite opposition". The Telegraph. 23 February 2008. Archived from the original on 24 December 2008.
"Beware of complacency as 'smoke-easies' appear", The Irish News, 12 June 2007
"Warning over 'smoke-easy' lock-ins". The Scotsman. Edinburgh. 29 August 2006.
"Stand-off!". The Huddersfield Daily Examiner. 17 January 2008. "My local smoke-easy". The New Statesman. 7 February 2008. "The Big Smoke-easy". The Publican. 21 February 2008.
"Everyone Head for the Smoke-Easy". Utah Statesman. 12 December 2006. Archived from the original on 20 January 2008.
"Smoke-easies offer cover from puff police; Aficionados just want a place to light up, relax". The Washington Times. 20 November 2003.
"tobaccofreecenter.org" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 August 2011. Retrieved 1 January 2010.
"Record compliance with smoking ban – The Irish Times – Mon, 22 Jun 2009". 6 June 2009.
"Times Higher Education – Italian smoking ban leads to drop in heart attacks". 3 October 2006.
"Smoking ban gets seal of public approval" (Press release). Scottish Government. 26 June 2006. Archived from the original on 5 February 2013.
"Smoking ban up in smoke in Kolkata". 24 February 2009.
"The Official Website of Joe Jackson". Archived from the original on 21 April 2007. Retrieved 12 April 2007.
The American Spectator : Smoking Room Archived 23 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine
Hoggart, Simon (18 May 2007). "Is the smoking ban a good idea?". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 7 April 2010.
^ Sen, Amartya (11 February 2007). "Unrestrained smoking is a libertarian half-way house". Financial Times.
"Lawyer: smoking ban may harm patients". 3 News NZ. 20 May 2013. Archived from the original on 3 July 2013.
"Smoking ban cruel to psychiatric patients, court told". 3 News NZ. 20 May 2013.
Valentin Petkantchin (April 2005). Should cigarettes be banned in public places? (PDF) (Report). Montreal Economic Institute. Retrieved 22 June 2009.
Judge Rules Nevada Smoking Ban is Constitutional – Las Vegas Now | Archived 24 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine
Montana Gaming Group, effect of public smoking ban on Montana businesses | smoking ban in public areas|Helena Montana smoking ban|environmental tobacco smoke Archived 24 August 2007 at the Wayback Machine
Anna Holland (26 September 2001). "Seven businesses sue over smoking ban". Iowa State Daily. Archived from the original on 24 November 2020. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
Ken Kobayashi; Rod Ohira (31 January 2007). "Anti-smoking law challenged". HonoluluAdvertiser.com.
Colorado AG Asks State Smoking Ban Lawsuit Be Dismissed [06/23/06-4]
Lawsuit Challenges Louisville's Smoking Ban – Louisville News Story – WLKY Louisville Archived 17 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
Health board stands by smoking ban,: Lawsuit alleges group overstepped its authority, Charleston Gazette
"Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights – Australia". Archived from the original on 9 September 2006. Retrieved 12 September 2006.
^ Wintour, Patrick (17 December 2005). "MPs to challenge ministers' veto on total smoking ban". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 7 October 2006.
O'Dowd A (July 2005). "Smoking ban in public places also cuts smoking at home". BMJ. 331 (7509): 129. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7509.129-b. PMC 558726. PMID 16020846.
"Drunk driving after the passage of smoking bans in bars". The Economist. 3 April 2008.
David R. Henderson (May 2008). "Smoking in Restaurants: Rejoinder to Alamar and Glantz" (PDF). Econ Journal Watch. 5 (2): 163–168. Retrieved 19 November 2009. p. 167: Alamar and Glantz may attack Dunham and Marlow (2000) on the grounds that it was funded by a tobacco company.
Marlow, Michael L. (2008). "Honestly, Who Else Would Fund Such Research? Reflections of a Non-Smoking Scholar". Econ Journal Watch. 5 (2): 240–268.
"Press Advisory – Statement of Councilmember Carol Schwartz at the 14 June 2005 Smoke-Free Hearing". 14 June 2005. Archived from the original on 19 April 2008. Retrieved 31 July 2008.
Cited at parliament.uk. "Dealing with the health effects of secondhand smoke". Retrieved 26 August 2010.
Cited at parliament.uk. "COMMENTARY ON STUDIES CARRIED OUT BY DR ANDREW GEENS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GLAMORGAN SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY". Retrieved 29 December 2011.
"Can Displacement Ventilation Control Secondhand ETS?".
Drope, J (2004). "Tobacco industry efforts to present ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free environments in North America". Tobacco Control. 13 (90001): 41i–47. doi:10.1136/tc.2003.004101. PMC 1766145. PMID 14985616.
BBC News Italians fume over cigarette curb 10 January 2005
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequesnces of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006. Retrieved 26 August 2010.

External links

Canadian Council for Tobacco Control
Clearing the Air Scotland Scottish Executive site established to provide information on Scotland's smoke-free legislation
Hong Kong Tobacco Control Office
History of Smoking Bans in the US
Irish Government's Office of Tobacco Control
State Tobacco Laws from the American Cancer Society
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library from the University of California, San Francisco
Philip Morris USA Document Archive
Prevalence of smoking and information on smoking bans in an interactive world map Archived 4 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine

Tobacco smoking

Country
and region

Africa	Egypt Nigeria South Africa
Asia	Afghanistan China East Timor Hong Kong India Indonesia Iran Iraq Japan North Korea South Korea Macau Malaysia Maldives Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Singapore Syria Taiwan Turkey Vietnam
Oceania	Australia New Zealand Tokelau
Europe	Albania Armenia Croatia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Norway Russia Sweden Turkey United Kingdom
South America	Argentina Brazil Colombia Ecuador Uruguay
North America	Canada Cuba United States

Religion

Health

Women and smoking