Talk:Smoking ban

message: There are three citation errors on this page and I don't quite know how to fix them. Hopefully someone will see this who does know how. Tkgd2007 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They'll be cases where a <ref> tag containing the actual citation has been removed, leaving behind just refs that look like . To fix them, you need to dig though the history and find where the citation broke, or just go back far enough that the ref existed. Its quite laborious. It'd be nice if there was a bot that could be asked the question. Bazzargh (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bad edit - . I'll see if it can be salvaged. Bazzargh (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Bazzargh (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation errors 

message: In the "History" section, this article states that Minnesota was the first state to issue a public smoking ban in 1975.  In the "Smoking bans by country" section, it states that is was Arizona in 1973.  Can someone clarify and/or correct this please?  71.59.102.86 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: There are several dead links in the article, I've tagged them as such as per WP:DEADREF (I inadvertantly sited WP:DEADLINK in the summary). The way I read WP:DEADREF, sources and material should only be removed if it is contentious or violates WP:BLP. Otherwise, the material should stay with the reference (tagged as inactive links) and alternative sources should be sought out. Since it appears this material stood for a while, I don't think there's any reason to doubt what the sources originally said. Redrocket (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: In this article's history part:
"On March 29, 2004, the Irish Government implemented a ban on smoking in the workplace, the first country to do so."
In List of smoking bans:
"Finland -- Smoking has been banned in indoor public areas and workplaces from 1st March, 1995, except in specially designated smoking rooms; restaurants were included in 2007" 
--86.60.145.245 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either Finland is not a country or one of these is false information 

message: The primary rationale is based on the WHO FCTC. But the WHO does not enact laws. Which laws are phrasing smoking bans and which rationales are there written? --Plenz (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale? 

message: To further my comments upon making the change, this was a sentence fragment, not a proper sentence.  Trying to form the correct conjuction to tie it together, I saw that it doesn't properly relate to that paragraph at all.  I suspect it was just stuck on by an anti-anti-smoker to talk back to "some legislators have found".  But that does not belong here.  Put it under the proper section.  It already had a fact-needed mark, so I just deleted it.  No edit war intended.  Długosz (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a fragment from ==Rationale== 

message: See  for an interesting new source.LeadSongDog come howl 07:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent publication 

message: Frankly, I do not believe the section "Alternatives to bans" belongs in this article. After all, this article is describing "Smoking Bans". 
The Nuclear Power article here on Wikipedia does not have a section on "Alternative Energy", so why should this article have a section on "Alternatives to Bans"? It does not make any sense whatsoever. Sure, coming up with alternatives makes sense if you want to make a political point, but in an encyclopedia this has absolutely no place. 
Some of the information in this section IS relevant, but the name of the section implies that it should all be removed immediately. That being said, any useful information within should be merged into other parts of this article.
99.51.75.51 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to bans -- section unnecessary? 

message: There are three things fundamentally wrong with this section:
* What on earth has a smoking ban to do with an increase in drink-driving?  The current section makes no attempt whatsoever to explain.  As such, it sounds like a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, and a ridiculous one at that.  For all I know, it's probably due to cultural changes in alcohol use, car use and possibly other factors over time.
* It talks of a 13% increase in fatal drink-driving accidents.  A 13% increase over what time period?
* It gives no indication of what's happened to the figure over the same time period in places without statutory smoking bans.
It might be meant to mean, for example
* in jurisdictions that have introduced smoking bans, the DUI death rate was on average 13% higher in the year (or whatever length of time) after the ban was introduced than in the year before
* as of May 2008, the DUI death rate is 13% higher on average in jurisdictions with smoking bans than in those without
but this still needs clarifying, and it makes no difference to my first point.
-- Smjg (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUI fatalities 

message: In the second paragraph, the article says smoking bans may ultimately increase health care costs, citing a 1997 article, "The Health Care Costs of Smoking." The premise of that article is that, if all smokers in a community quit, there would be a short-term decrease in health care costs. But, over the long term, the cost would be higher than for a mixed smoker/non-smoker population. In my opinion, the connection between this analysis and smoking bans is weak. The study cited is about cessation, not smoking bans. Restricting smoking in public places does not force smokers to quit. So why cite a study (especially an outdated one) based on the theoretical cost of cessation? 75.66.29.16 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale Citation

message: This section is heavily biased against smoking bans, literally dozens of references are given as to the negative impact of smoking bans in the key countries listed. Without going into the detail in what is a controversial issue, this section is unbalanced and biased.
Further, the selection of countries appears arbitrary, and the section duplicates the main article on 'List of Smoking Bans'. I submit that the individual country listings be removed, and that any pertinant information be moved to the main article. 
The section itself should remain, and it should perhaps be a short paragraph or two - an overview highlighting the state of global smoking bans. It already has a clear link to the list of smoking bans article for users who wish to read specifics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarantus (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, the section is highly problematic, since it focuses almost exclusively on the effects of smoking bans on the profitability of bars and restaurants. It would be better to have a section on this topic, drawing on evidence from different countries, which appears inconclusive in total. JQ (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I've merged the "by country" section into "effects on business", trimming it a bit along the way. The information in the "by country" section broadly confirms what is stated in the intro to the "effects on business" section - official and academic studies find no adverse effects, indusry-funded studies find big effects. JQ (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking ban by country - bias and necessity 

message: This article states that Chandigardh was the first city to go smoke-free in India in 2007. However, smoking was banned in the whole state of Kerala in 1999 itself [e.g:- see http://archive.thepeninsulaqatar.com/component/content/article/348-indiaarchiverest/88299.html]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.99.217 (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking ban in India 

message: I believe this section should be removed.  The title seems to be someones opinion and the facts in the section hardly support it.Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it lacks objectivity / neutrality. (viol. WP:NPOV??) -andy 77.190.33.135 (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking may be moved elsewhere 

message: I've just appended a tiny bit which indicates that smoking IS allowed in railway stations in some locations, just not everywhere. I lived in South Germany for quite awhile, and e. g. in the Stuttgart main railway station the "smokers' corners" were even provided on the platforms! This does not necessarily have to be the case in all stations, but if you come to Germany, you can see yourself that you're not "100% banned" as a smoking railway passenger walking around on the station area (as the article previously suggested), just not free to decide where you want to light your cigarette. -andy 77.190.33.135 (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany and railway stations: just FYI 

message: I changed from (C) a smudgy image to (F)a new and clear image in 18 November 2011 .
--Dr. Watson system (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very good.  Thank you for doing this.  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image C 

message: Observing the helpful feedback from the above discussion following a previous (abortive) move, I have looked into this further and noted that a false dichotomy appeared to have arisen between 'smoking ban' and 'smoke-free law'; it's evident that, although often used as synonyms, they do describe subtly but importantly concepts - usually the former defines whether one can smoke, the latter where.  I have attempted to add a short couple of introductory sections which gloss this suitably without falling into the trap set by some activists opposed to tobacco control measures, who appear to be keen to use the term 'ban' as widely as possible because 'banning' anything can be readily presented as unwelcome politically.  But it's a complex subject, in which achieving full objectivity can be tough - so if fellow contributors have ideas on improving this, they would be welcome.Hypocaustic (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you "noted" has "arisen" is inherently WP:OR, and has no place in this article. You remain the only editor ever to have objected to using the common term "smoking ban" to describe polices and laws that prohibit smoking. If you want the terminology used on Wikipedia to be something different than "smoking ban," propose a WP:RM and see what the consensus is. That's how we operate here. For now, reverting your continuing unilateral actions remains the best policy, as before. Wikophile (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Please change the intro to imply that when substances other than tobacco may otherwise be smoked legally, a location-specific smoking ban typically applies equally to those substances.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.211.206 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I damn know this is not a forum. I'm requesting a factcheck on the intro/definition of a smoking ban 

message: How to support this article? Can anyone please tell?BOTFIGHTER (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Smoking ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304195527/http://www.e-sheesh.com/up_in_smoke.html?_s=PM:TRAVEL to http://www.e-sheesh.com/up_in_smoke.html?_s=PM:TRAVEL
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Smoking ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_10027079
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It says that "The first modern attempt at restricting smoking was imposed by the [...] German government" in 1941. I don't see why this is considered as the first "modern" attempt. According to Jerome Jackman, Assistant City Attorney, South Dakota had a total cigarette ban already in 1916. He wrote (in 1916): "In South Dakota the sale and manufacture of cigarets and cigaret papers is unlawful and the sale of tobacco [all kinds] to persons under 16 is prohibited.
Source: http://www.mnhs.org/newspapers/lccn/sn83016772/1916-01-15/ed-1/seq-12 (in the lower right part of the page)
Is a state law in 1916 not to regard as modern? I think it is.
--Andreas1974 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I think you could add a morality dilemma between smokers and the State.
Remember that many people older than 40 had during their youth all kind of incentives to start smoking, including TV adverting on tobacco with full support from the State.
Only the people from those generation that wasn't really predisposed to tobacco addiction (genetically for sure) escaped addiction.
Yes, the State was wrong, perhaps as much as people who started smoking was wrong. However, now the same State prosecutes those addicted people who started with its support pretending to be doing that morally.
What's the State morality here?
I think Russia's ban on smoking in the future for people born after 2014 is a moral decision by the State, which in some form forgives those who started smoking at a time the State allowed it and will hardly be followed by those cynic immoral States that are dependent on tobacco revenue to survive. These latter States will keep prosecuting smoking people with popular measures like banning smoking in public, that grant State's income anyway, as they don't lost one single smoker and after all the State doesn't really care where they burn their cigarrettes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.158.23.95 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of smoke-free laws 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Smoking ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html to http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e-sheesh.com/up_in_smoke.html?_s=PM%3ATRAVEL
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151120015349/http://www.healthcarejournalno.com/the-journal/hjno-contents-index/features/2288-clearing-the-air to http://www.healthcarejournalno.com/the-journal/hjno-contents-index/features/2288-clearing-the-air
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224215115/http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ban_11408___article.html/smoking_bar.html to http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ban_11408___article.html/smoking_bar.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828200837/http://www.cctc.ca/ to http://www.cctc.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The image from EHM is dated 2007, so it's very very outdated and it should be deleted or moved to a historical point of view.
This article is much more accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.16.4 (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  EHM graphic map very outdated 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Valerie.ov (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23

message: Write an article for the newspaper supporting the view that smoking should be completely banned 190.108.215.168 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  English A