New version of Toledo Talk

    July 31, 2007

Restaurant bites Dust - Plea from Bar Owner-Poker Run - This just in from Smokersrights in Ohio about ban damage -
My name is Bob Ebbing, my wife and I own Sure Shots (bar /lounge ) in
Kettering Ohio. We have been hit very hard by the new law banning
smoking. I saw where Kelley's Corner in Belmont had to close due to
this new law . I grew up with David Angie who's parents owned and
operated this restaurant / bar for many years, it is a shame to see
it close because of the many self righteous people who think we
should live the way they want us to, and tell us how to live in a
FREE COUNTRY. in the past two weeks our bar has been a factor in two
poker runs for two different women who have cancer. the first one
raised over $12000.00 the second one raised almost $15000.00. we had
over 200 motorcycle owners and riders at each event.
as a group of people who band together when help is needed,
unselfishely helping others in need , it was brought up that we need
to organized a SMOKERS RIGHTS POKER RUN to show everyone in Ohio just
how unfair this law is, and that we as voters were mis-lead by the
wording of this law that we had to vote for. my wife and I have
talked to many of our fellow bikers and they feel the same. with your
support we could organize a lot of the bikers groups to help get our
message out by being on the television and or newspaper coverage. we
would be willing to do anything that needs to be done to organize
this, and with your help, to get the word out we could possibly make
this a state wide event. many groups of bikers will help show their
support for our right's as free American's, and help us to not lose
any more right's to the self rightous people who want to tell us how
we as free American's should do as they say. if you think this is
worth a try please contact me (bob ebbing ) at
(937)657-8327 any help or input would be greatly appreciated. I feel
we could get a lot a signatures and raise much needed fund for our
cause thru this effort.

posted by starling02 to commentary at 5:40 P.M. EST     (31 Comments)

Comments ...

Bars and restaurants have been going out of business on a regular basis for years - many years before the smoking ban was put on the ballot. I haven't read any stories about how all the restaurants and bars have been eradicated in NYC and California. Businesses, like people, need to evolve to survive.

If the ban on smoking truly has a negative effect on business, the owners better do something to make their business more appealing. Think that's unfair? I don't know what to tell you, except that life is not always fair. Given the choice between killing people slowly or a negligible impact on a business, I'll vote in favor of the people every time.

Also, stop complaining that the Ohio language was confusing. The pro-smoking groups made the same argument BEFORE the law was enacted, they went public and explained how the law would work, and the people still voted in favor.

I'm not going to continue this thread beyond this post because the whole argument has been done to death. You have the right to free speech and I fully support you in that right. That being said, quit whining.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 06:12 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 31, 2007     #

" That being said, quit whining."

Well now, aint that callen the kettle black.

posted by swantucky at 06:21 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 31, 2007     #

Kudos for your cancer fundraising. But I get the feeling that this law is going to do a lot more for fighting cancer than any amount of money could accomplish.
posted by joshw at 06:23 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 31, 2007     #

The rabid smoker-haters don't care how many places go under, or how many more are put out of work, Star. As long as they got their way.
posted by Darkseid at 09:01 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 31, 2007     #

I DO hope that money went directly to the people involved, and NOT to the ACS.
posted by Darkseid at 09:03 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 31, 2007     #

I DO hope that money went directly to the people involved, and NOT to the ACS.

Generally for an event like that, it goes directly to the sick person for expenses.

Even if a person has great medical insurance, there are going to be additional expenses. The person might be on a sick or disability leave from work (or worse - out of a job entirely) while undergoing treatment...since they wouldn't be getting a regular paycheck, perhaps they have trouble paying the mortgage, utilities, etc. Fundraisers can help cover all of life's expenses that pile up while a person is in that situation.

posted by mom2 at 09:41 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 31, 2007     #

It's true. The ban kills restaurants. Due to the ban, smokers no longer need nourishment. They developed chloroplasts and now photosynthesize the sun's rays, which they have plenty of room for outside vacant restaurants.
posted by thetoledowire_com at 10:43 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 31, 2007     #

I'm sorry that anyone's business is suffering, but I can't believe that suffering supercedes the number of people (present party included) who suffer from lung disease that is excerbated by 2nd hand smoke.

I watched my Dad die a slow miserable death, in which he blamed no one for his nicotine addiction. He missed so much. It got to a point, where he couldn't go out to eat nor enjoy a beer at a bar because of the smoke. He was on oxygen and had quit 7 years prior to dying, which is why we had him.

I don't think this is about the non-smokers getting thier way. That's over simplified. If smoker's could 'eat' their cigarette, then non-smokers would have no horse in this race.

If the state didn't have to pay the expenses of these folks, once they ruin their lungs, then the state would have no race.

I hate the fact that businesses are going under, I just wonder if they can survive long enough to appeal to a new market: the niche of folks who couldn't previously go out because of the 2nd hand smoke.

You don't have to hold a parent in your arms and watch them choke on their own flem, begging for air because they were hooked on cigarettes for decades and clearly suffered from the last acceptable addiction, to know that no good comes from cigarettes. Families are destroyed and ripped apart. Your bar and restaurant clientel dies a slow death too. There isn't a day that goes by in which I don't miss my Pop's. If the smoking ban, however painful for business owners, spares even one family what we've been through - I can't say it wouldn't be worth it.

Besides, why should a smoker's 'right' to smoke supercede anyone's 'right' to not have to be killed slowly by it?

posted by anotherblogger at 11:38 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 31, 2007     #

anotherblogger - I'm sorry for your dad's death - but you can't blame it on shs, you yourself said he'd been a smoker. Smoking is not healthy - nobody here has ever suggested it was. But nobody has EVER died or gotten cancer, etc.from shs. If you believe I'm wrong - then prove it - post a death certificate with cause of death. NO studies have ever been able to prove shs levels to be adequate to even be considered mildly hazardous. (at the risk of being repetitious, I suggest you check the thread here & on swampbubbles that lists EVERY SHS STUDY DONE, with RESULTS - and NONE came close to being considered mildly hazardous. Check the actual studies & read the numbers, comments, etc. - rather than just blindly belief the swill propaganda the ACS, WHO & the surgeon general & the stand up brats spewed.

josh - I suggest you go back & read prior posts here & on SB. Obsesity & alcholism costs more in taxpayers dollars for medical care than straight smoking does - shs isn't even in the running. That has been proven. Tobacco taxes generate huge profits, that more than make up for any medical expenses. Above & way beyond. One medical statistic I'd read said that out of all the people who died from cancer & lung & heart disease, 25 percent were smokers. OK, that means, that the OTHER 75 percent were NOT SMOKERS. Fact: some people are predisposed to cancer, others are not - I've been told this by a doctor & several nurses.

morethanrhetoric - if you haven't heard about ban damage in California, it's because you aren't looking (California also has the luxury of good weather year round & LOTS of patios). Do you think for a minute that the Blade or local news is going to cover that? Announce closings in any but a bordering state? Ban damage in California & every other state, every country, can be easily located at,,, & others.

Second-hand smoke is Second-Hand Science: The EPA Report In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen. This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the anti-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it's no one else's business. But if he is hurting everyone around him, all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified. Is SHS really deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully. Fact: In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year. Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself "Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.

Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.

The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word "study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.

Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.

Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.

Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day."

Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)

Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report.

The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and conclusions.

Fact: According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies.

Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, as discussed in Epidemiology 102, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by "surrogates." In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.

Fact: The CRS pointed out that "from a group of 30 studies. . six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."

Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.

Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." (p. 25)

Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed "no risk at all." (p.25)

Fact: The "scientists" who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. Philip Morris recently won a lawsuit to gain access to it.

Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.

Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they doubled their margin of error. Let me repeat that, because it may seem hard to believe: After failing to achieve their pre-announced results by ignoring half of the data, they doubled their margin of error!

Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?

Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
• Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as and insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Epidemiology 101 for more details.)

This rule is routinely ignored when the subject is second hand smoke.

Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant.

Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.

Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.

Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."

Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA's methodology. In his judgment he stated: "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."

Fact: The following is another direct quote from Judge Osteen's decision: "In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen."

Most of the media ignored the judge's decision.

When confronted with this decision, many anti-tobacco activists and organizations harp on the fact that Judge Osteen lives in South Carolina. The obvious implication is that he's influenced by the tobacco industry in his state. It may also be an appeal to the "stupid southerner" stereotype.

Fact: Judge Osteen has a history of siding with the government on tobacco cases.

Fact: In 1997 Judge Osteen ruled the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco.

So much for his alleged bias.

Fact: Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate.

Fact: Anyone referring to EPA classifying ETS as a Class A carcinogen is referring to this study.

Opinion: You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to this study, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were facts. That includes everyone who refers to the EPA's ruling that ETS is a Class A Carcinogen. Once they do, every subsequent statement they make should be considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified.

Fact: Most of the information on this page was gleaned from Judge Osteen's 92 page decision, the CRS report, and the EPAs study.

You are strongly encouraged to read these documents yourself. You can find the judge's entire decision. The CRS report is available . The EPA report over six hundred pages long, and I recommend you order a hard copy. It is available to US citizens at no charge. Call (800) 438-4318 and ask for document EPA/600/6-90/006F. The title of the report is "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders." It is also available as on line as a pdf file. It is nearly four megabytes, so it may take a while to download.

Fact: Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA, still insists that this study is valid!

posted by starling02 at 12:17 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

Bars and restaurants have been going out of business on a regular basis for years - many years before the smoking ban was put on the ballot.

True, but THIS bar wasnt going out of business until the ban.

Kudos for your cancer fundraising.

The man is trying to save his business that this ban is killing. Josh, you're an asshole.

but I can't believe that suffering supercedes the number of people (present party included) who suffer from lung disease that is excerbated by 2nd hand smoke.


There's no more smoke in this guys' bar, but the non smokers are STILL not going there, so I guess it's not about that then, is it??

posted by billy at 07:16 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

Second hand smoke on private property has been removed - that's for sure. But it has been replaced with a reduction in freedom.

Throughout history, what do you think has killed more people, second hand smoke or a lack of individual liberty?

The ironic thing is that ban supporters think they are the ones that see the big picture.

posted by babbleman at 07:36 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

...don't forget that this went before a state-wide vote. And this is the will of the majority of Ohioans... is essence, the smoking ban is democracy exercised, and thus an expression of freedom and liberty: the right of the people to decide their own laws.

I myself loathe the death penalty. I see it as a cruel, unusual punishment that denigrates the compassion and integrity we all should have for each other. But, as many of my critics will point out, over 50% of Ohioans disagree with me.

Likewise, over 50% of Ohioans disagree with those who do not like the smoking ban.

Such is the way of our democracy....

posted by timault at 09:35 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

Such is the way of our democracy....

That is absolutely correct and, as such, it was not structured well enough to withstand being completely re-structured into socialism / statism - two models that it was specifically designed to repel. And it has failed miserably in the last century and continues to fail with policy like the smoking ban.

As I have said here before a million times - the significance of the smoking ban (and many other policies like it) has nothing to do with smoking or health.


posted by babbleman at 11:34 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

I call bullshit. Bar owners up here in N.W. Ohio use the excuse that smokers can go to Michigan to drink where there is no smoking ban.

Are we to believe that smokers in Kettering go to another state to do the same? Maybe he's just a lousy businessman.

I say again, "methinks though dost protest too much".

Preach me the merits of smoking while you die slowly and painfully of cancer.
Get a brain and quit.

posted by JeepMaker at 11:51 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #
posted by roygbiv at 12:11 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

I just wonder if they can survive long enough to appeal to a new market: the niche of folks who couldn't previously go out because of the 2nd hand smoke.

Anotherblogger: what the f- is that. Seriously, are you trying to say that there exists an untapped market of poor smoke-sensitive citizens who are now able to leave their homes as the massive plumes of thick second hand smoke has disappeared? That is good stuff.

If the ban on smoking truly has a negative effect on business, the owners better do something to make their business more appealing. Think that's unfair? I don't know what to tell you, except that life is not always fair.

MoreThanRhetoric- That kind of thing tears families apart. I know a family who lost everything when their restaurant went under. It's tough to own your own business. You obviously don't have the slightest clue what it's like. It becomes your life. To lose your business as a result of jackass intervention (and it is happening as much as many want to deny it) is freaking devastating. Try telling your kids that they have to move out of their home, because well basically, you failed. Good times.

Now go back and spout off some more bullshit about subjects that your can't even begin to understand.

posted by nick44 at 02:33 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

I intended to stay out of this unavoidable mess, but Nick has a big mouth and no perspective, so...

My family not only lost a business but is very close to losing a house now, due to many factors that were in and out of their control. The smoking ban is not the only reason that these businesses are going under. If you believe that for even a second, it's because YOU have never owned a business. The smoking ban, on its own, could not submarine a host of otherwise thriving bars.

My dad made mistakes that were compounded by a very unfair tax code. But, guess what, to this day he takes responsibility for the fact that he might have been able to avoid his current problems by being a better businessman. Only time will tell if his business is the only thing he lost, but he's not crying to anyone who will listen that he was a helpless victim.

In case my Dad is not a close enough relative for me to feel the effects, I have also owned my own business. I probably know better than you Nick, how hard it is to make a go of a small enterprise in this city. So, let me leave you with some of your own words

Now go back and spout off some more bullshit about subjects that your can't even begin to understand.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 02:48 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

since it has relevance to this topic as well, I'm going to post this here in addition to the thread 5 below this on:

As a restaurant owner, I can tell you for sure you are mischaracterizing the feelings of our industry on this issue. As for the previous ban, the one that affected only Toledo, I was against that. Since it affected such a small area and smokers were free to eat in Maumee or Sylvania that had a huge affect on businesses so thankfully it was finally repealed. The statewide ban however does not do the same thing the local ban did. People don’t have the option of Maumee or Sylvania, they could go to Michigan but I heard of no mass migration and from the sound of it Michigan too will likely have a ban in place soon.

The concept of the smoking ban killing restaurants is a myth. Most articles I have read about people going out of business have acknowledged that business has been slumping for some time. It would have to have been . The ban has not been in effect long enough to have an effect yet. The restaurant business is show-business and trends rule it. One minute you are hot; the next, no one can remember your name. Some failed businesses might want to place blame elsewhere for their misfortune, but it is not truthful. This is just the nature of the beast.

The fact of the matter is smokers still eat food. 95% of them don’t mind going outside to smoke, not because they understand it is the law, but because they understand that smoking indoors is rude and inconsiderate. There could be someone behind them that is trying to quit. There could be someone who can’t try this establishment’s famous ribs because they have severe asthma. We accommodate the physically disabled by providing ramps. Why would we not consider those with repertory disorders? Smokers are not locked in there bedrooms waiting for the ban to be lifted. They are going out and enjoying their lives as they always have.

Now this ban does change the market place a bit for restaurants and the conventional wisdom says “we should always let the market decide”, right? Now sadly, I had the misfortune of spending 4 dismal years in the Economics Department in college so I can tell that assumption is wrong (not usually but in this case).

Now ever since Adam Smith started talking about invisible hands in the 1700’s, it has been common knowledge that markets solve all of our problems and that everything tastes that much better with a little competition thrown into the mix. Flash forward 200 hundred years and finally someone said “maybe not”. That man was John Nash (Russell Crows played him in “A Beautiful Mind”). The root of the idea which won him the Nobel Prize was very simple. Sometimes competition leads to behaviors that make all of the competitors worse off. Allowing non smoking separations is perfect illustration of this concept.

Now for the sake of simplicity let’s represent all restaurants with two, “Restaurant A” and “Restaurant B”. And let’s look at only smoking customers since they are our focus and presume there are 1000 of them. Now under the current situation “Restaurant A” and “B” both get 500 customers each. Each customer spends $10, so, “A” makes $5000 and “B” makes $5000. Now let’s allow them to build a smoking separation which costs $2500. If “A” builds and “B” does not “A” will get all 100 customers and make $10,000 minus the investment leaving A with $7500. “B” makes nothing. If both build they keep their 500 customers making $5000 minus the investment leaving both with $2500. Since not building means making $0, both will have to build even though both parties end up worse off as a result. By not allowing restaurants to build, we all save that enormous expense which could be better spent elsewhere. That is why these rooms are bad for us and that’s why you won’t see us lining up to build them.

Now obviously the world is more complex than our example. Some restaurants, particularly smaller independently owned ones will not be able to afford these alterations or will not have the space for it. Who will be able to do these? The corporate owned chains, the Applebee’s, the Fridays, and Outback Steakhouse’s of the world. They will be able to throw up a wall and a filter overnight without missing a beat and this will push out the little guy and the little local color that these massive chains haven’t already erased will disappear. Now personally I always root for the little guy, particularly when I am the little guy. Independent restaurants that actually make food from scratch rather than buying microwave meals from GFS are running out, and I (and your taste-buds) see no reason to encourage this trend.

I’m sorry, but the truth is the revolution is not coming.

posted by thetoledowire_com at 03:17 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

toledowire - You may be referring to the "Nash Equalibrium" , which is applied to GAMES, NOT economics. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994 for " for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games". (Again - sounds like you just don't want competition in your restaurant. You do great ribs? Soon as I find out which one it is, we'll NEVER eat there.) Just a snippet, as follows:

Where the conditions are not met

Examples of game theory problems in which these conditions are NOT met:

1. The first condition is not met if the game does not correctly describe the quantities a player wishes to maximize. In this case there is no particular reason for that player to adopt an equilibrium strategy. For instance, the prisoner’s dilemma is not a dilemma if either player is happy to be jailed indefinitely.
2. Pong has an equilibrium which can be played perfectly by a computer, but to make human vs. computer games interesting the programmers add small errors in execution, violating the second condition.
3. In many cases, the third condition is not met because, even though the equilibrium must exist, it is unknown due to the complexity of the game, for instance in Chinese chess[2]. Or, if known, it may not be known to all players, as when playing tic-tac-toe with a small child who desperately wants to win (meeting the other criteria).
4. The fourth criterion of common knowledge may not be met even if all players do, in fact, meet all the other criteria. Players wrongly distrusting each other's rationality may adopt counter-strategies to expected irrational play on their opponents’ behalf. This is a major consideration in “Chicken” or an arms race, for example.

Where the conditions are met

Due to the limited conditions in which NE can actually be observed, they are rarely treated as a guide to day-to-day behaviour, or observed in practice in human negotiations. However, as a theoretical concept in economics, and evolutionary biology the NE has explanatory power. The payoff in economics is money, and in evolutionary biology gene transmission, both are the fundamental bottom line of survival. Researchers who apply games theory in these fields claim that agents failing to maximize these for whatever reason will be competed out of the market or environment, which are ascribed the ability to test all strategies. This conclusion is drawn from the "stability" theory above. In these situations the assumption that the strategy observed is actually a NE has often been borne out by research.

Anybody who believes a smoking ban won't sink a restaurant, bar, etc. is deluded - easy enough to get info on that. But again - the pro ban people always try to blame the death of the business on poor management, etc. Rubbish. YOu aren't aware of migrating business to border states? You must live under a rock. Wait till the weather cools off when the patios close & watch business die. We have not eaten in a single Ohio restaurant since the ban (we eat out about 1-2 times a week - average $25.- $80. for the two of us, PLUS tip). I mentioned in another thread how the smoking ban has hurt Canada's bars & restaurants in a huge way. That ban is ALL of Canada - the entire country, they can't just jump a state line. And yet, every month when I go to Canada & talk to pharmacists & the local business owners, they tell me it's killing business - that people just stopped going out at all. Sometimes, we get take out - yes, the restaurant makes money off of us, but the waitress makes no decent tip (I tip the take out girl a few bucks, but it pales to what she'd be making if we ate inside).

I keep hearing the pro ban people talk about how smoke free restaurants & bars will keep them healthy, disease free, etc. & less likely to get cancer. That is so much rubbish, and there is NO evidence to back that up. Go back & READ the thread that has all the results of EVERY STUDY ON SHS ever done. I am sick of hearing that anybody who gets a disease or cancer, it must be blamed on shs. Ya know, there's over 50,0000 carcinagens you're exposed to DAILY. Get a grip.

morethan said "Stop Whining"?????? I wonder if they said that to people against prohibition, or slavery, or women's right to vote? I will not just swallow whole this ban on the face of bogus propaganda it's been created with.

posted by starling02 at 05:38 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

morethan, I did not mean to direct the comment about spouting bullshit directly to you. Although, from reading your previous post, I assumed that you had never been in business before. I apologize if you took offense to mine. Too many times I have been confronted with suggestions, ignorant assumptions, or snide remarks about my business(es). I get defensive when I perceive that type of mentality. It was a poor assumption. My bad. I am not saying that I agree with your earlier post, but the personal part should stay out. As far as my perspective, I have owned business, helped with startups, and currently own one. I have also witnessed both family and associates lose everything as a result of a business failure. I get a little defensive when I perceive that someone is not emphathizing with that situation as well.
posted by nick44 at 06:28 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

toledowire - You may be referring to the "Nash Equalibrium" , which is applied to GAMES, NOT economics. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994 for " for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games". -starling

1) Game Theory is part of college Economics curriculums because it has applications to Economics.

2) Nash got the Nobel Prize in Economics because his work had applications to economics.

3) Those paragraphs you cut-and-pasted from wikipedia say my example is valid. Did you read them?

posted by thetoledowire_com at 09:34 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

It's sad to watch the same things play out over and over everywhere when bans come in. The owners who were told the nonsmokers would flock to their businesses never show up. Someone above brought up California. Here's a quote from a California friend of mine that I featured in my book three years ago:

After California’s smoking ban, we’d see TV interviews of people sitting in a bar enjoying a drink, telling the camera that this is the first time they'd been able to go to a bar since the smoke always bothered them and now they'd be able to go out for drinks and enjoy themselves.

One such interview was at a bar in San Diego where I knew the owner personally. The next time I spoke with her she angrily told me it was a set-up and she hadn't seen the couple since that day nor have any of the other bar owners she's associated with. She was finally learning, a little too late, what she was up against. -Marty Ronhovdee

And if anyone thinks it's going to "bounce back" after a few months, check out the multi-state study at:

and see what California's bans actually did.

There was a TV news spot last night about a bar that was enforcing the ban and was complaining that everyone else was ignoring it: maybe there's hope for Ohio yet.

Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies, and laws based upon lies deserve the lack of respect they get.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains

posted by Cantiloper at 11:40 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 01, 2007     #

wire - I DID read the article, and many more about John Nash (long before you sited him on this thread, I've been facinated by him for quite a while). Copied & pasted from my above wiki copy & paste on the "Nash Equalibrium":

"Due to the limited conditions in which NE can actually be observed, they are rarely treated as a guide to day-to-day behaviour, or in practice in human negotiations..."

Perhaps it's left to us to interpret..... I'm well aware of his work in economics - but he was most importantly, a mathemetician, and the "Nash Equilibrium" was about GAMES.
At any rate - I don't think John Nash would think a smoking ban is a good idea anyway - He liked a good cigar.

wire said "The fact of the matter is smokers still eat food. 95% of them don’t mind going outside to smoke..." - BULLSHIT.
Your theory wire, sounds so much like communism - rather than let free enterprise & freedom to choose work it's magic, you seem to prefer that all restaurants & bars be required to work within the same box, so nobody has an 'advantage' of customer base. That is scary.
You know, this country worked just fine until the ban lovers went to work. I don't think the best solution is to let businesses install separate smoking rooms, for the reasons you mentioned. I MUCH prefer that private business owners decide for themselves whether to allow smoking - or not. If so, whether to have a simple smoking section, or a completely enclosed room for the smoking section - it should be left to the PRIVATE business owner to decide what he wants to do. And people can decide with their dollars, where to eat & drink - let the chips fall where they may. (But of course, that's pretty much what it already was pre ban.).
wire - you sound like you don't think a restaurant could survive if they didn't have a smoking section & other restaurants did - which pretty much blows the arguement out of the water, about what the masses prefer. You keep talking about the edge it'd give the place with the smoking section over yours.

posted by starling02 at 01:10 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 02, 2007     #

I laugh when I read these antis referring to CA and damage.

I have cronies in both states that work in the music biz that are still struggling because of this nonsense.

It won't get any better in Ohio until this ban is overturned.

Both CA and NY have had a good number of years for the "turnaround" the antis always promise, but it is is only wishful thinking window dressing.

In other words, like their little SHS schemes, it is all a bunch of lies.

I see the nanny posted again.
Your gig roster looks pretty empty on your website.
Should be full according to your "logic"......

posted by Musician at 11:35 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 02, 2007     #

Perhaps it's left to us to interpret..... I'm well aware of his work in economics - but he was most importantly, a mathemetician, and the "Nash Equilibrium" was about GAMES.

You have no clue about what game theory is, do you?

At any rate - I don't think John Nash would think a smoking ban is a good idea anyway - He liked a good cigar.

He probably still likes a good cigar since he's still alive.

posted by thenick at 04:15 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 02, 2007     #

This is GREAT!!! This is for all you SMOKERS out there that oppose this ban. And I think a word of thanks should go out to web master of for so willingly providing a list of "violators" to the smoking ban. I think that is GREAT!!! Kind of turns the tables on the SHS crowd and tells the smokers WHERE THEY CAN GO TO SMOKE!!!

So to the SMOKING RESISTANCE, go to, click on "city" in the gray bar to alphabetize the list and find a city near you that has been "caught" allowing smoking!!!

Kind of makes you wonder if the anti-smoking crowd really has there thing together, especially when they provide tins kind of info!!!

For the record, I'm a former smoker who believes in free choice, and that means the freedom to decide if I will patronize a business that allows smoking. I will not relinquish that freedom to anyone. And anyone that wants to continue to blame cancer on smoking or second hand smoke, think about this, life is a terminal disease. Everyone dies!!! Ok, that might sound stupid to some but no less stupid than the smoking ban to smokers!!! 'Nuff said.


posted by rick948 at 04:30 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 02, 2007     #

thenick - I am well aware that John Nash is still alive (and teaching), and I caught my typo as soon as I posted it, but didn't think it was that big a deal - until you made it one. I'd love to know what Nash would have to say about smoking bans, but I'm sure he has more important things on his mind.

I don't claim to understand mathematics or economics - but yes, I 'grasp' what game theory is. I've read enough about it (not a huge amount) - and yes, it's based on game playing (Pong, Prisoner,etc.. It is NOT about running a business, although I can see how it could be applied that way. Every article on game theory by Nash I've read, discusses these games, strategy, etc. I haven't read one that relates it to a business.

posted by starling02 at 06:32 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 02, 2007     #

Came across this on smokersrights (Virginia):
Government smoking ban not way to go
Jul. 27, 2007
I hate cigarettes.
Smoking is a nasty and dangerous habit, though in a small way I am complicit in America's smoking obsession. I picked tobacco during a summer job in rural Berkeley County. Black tar was stuck on my fingertips at the end of every day.
I've already begun telling my kids how horrible cigarettes are.
It irritates me to no end when a whiff of smoke makes its way into my booth across the restaurant from the smoking section.
It saddens me that thousands of people die every year from smoking-related diseases and that millions of others continue increasing their chances for a variety of cancers and heart disease by smoking.
I'm no friend of Big or Little tobacco, even though they fed many Grand Strand farming families for decades.
Still, I'm not convinced government-mandated smoking bans should be supported. Such bans, like the one passed this week by Surfside Beach, are emotionally charged but often don't pass the smell test once scrutinized.
The bar should be high for the government to limit freedom. We should support government intervention when a clear and incontrovertible public health concern has been proven, the public can't reasonably be expected to protect itself and it isn't an unnecessary burden to small business. Banning smoking in public places is less of a problem, considering we all share those spaces. But I can choose not to work or eat where smoking is allowed.
Additionally, many private businesses are limiting smoking because their customers are demanding it. Others thrive because they let smokers smoke freely.
"The evidence is clear [that] smoking bans, especially one-size-fits-all ones, kill establishments," wrote Jeremy Richards, a Georgia history professor, in an essay posted on my blog. He's been studying the progression of smoking bans. "In Delaware, even supporters of the state's smoking ban admit the ban drove some establishments into extinction."
The health-related concerns are hardly clear-cut. A report that studied smoking from 1960 to 1998 found that there was no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related deaths, Richards found.
"Anti-smokers speak of deaths from secondhand smoke," Richards wrote. "Ask them for the bodies, the death certificates, the graves. They cannot produce them. ... It is hard to find victims when nonsmoking bartenders inhale the equivalent of 1/10th of a cigarette per shift."
ONLINE | For past columns and to read Bailey's blog, go to

posted by starling02 at 06:35 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 02, 2007     #

If smokers ate their cigarettes, you'd never hear a peep out of me, but they don't.

And, in response to the 'no one ever said it was good to smoke' == by the time anyone said it was dangerous or lethal to engage in smoking over a prolonged amount of time, my Pop's among others, was already ADDICTED and DYING. He quit, that's what gave us some extra time, but please don't patronize anyone with these EPA-wrong about this and that findings.

I sat there, I know, I watched and listened. He's gone and he'd be the first to tell you he killed himself softly. But, I don't think any smoker of his generation had any idea the ramifications of what they were doing because od the 1/2 info their boy Phillip Morris was doling out.

Insofar as smoker's having rights -- you bet!!! But don't your rights stop where my nose begins? It's analogous to saying swimming pool pee-ers have rights to -- they do, but they have no right to ruin the rest of everyone's space in the pool.

posted by anotherblogger at 02:35 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 03, 2007     #

/recalls the old Steve Martin routine,"when somebody asks me, "mind if I smoke" I always say, "no, mind if I fart"?
posted by JeepMaker at 11:42 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 04, 2007     #

A lit lighter will make the fart go away.
So, I never mind if you fart.

posted by Musician at 08:13 A.M. EST on Mon Aug 06, 2007     #

<< Older Latest 'study': Smoking Dope worse for y...    |    Toledo's pit bull law upheld - so what d... Newer >>

This is an old topic and is no longer allowing comments.

home | about | archives | customize | contact | forums | post | search

© 2003-2007
All posts are © their original authors.