Talk:List of smoking bans in the United States

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Introductory section

I don't understand. I came to this page expecting a list of smoking bans in the U.S., and yet the opening paragraph suggests that the article should be titled "How the U.S. Federal Government Could Implement a Nationwide Smoking Ban In Spite of the Purpose of the Constitution and those pro-cancer Libertarians". Seriously, what do theories about how the gov't could defend a federal smoking ban in the Supreme Court have to do with a listing of States and cities that have already done so WITHOUT violating/skirting the 10th Amendment, and how is this NPOV/without bias? The information given is not entirely without merit, but it seems to me that not only is it mostly speculative, but it should be under a different heading/section if included at all; as it makes a subtle (ie passive-aggressive) argument in what should be JUST a descriptor of a straightforward list. Its placement at the introduction implies that "given that the following bunch of (expletives) that have (dictated that we not) smoke in certain places, the federal government could and SHOULD ban smoking, but chooses not to out of laziness and an uninformed voting public"...as opposed to there being any ready, reasonable opposition and a valid legal controversy, but the law is the law and these are the places the law exists. And this is supposed to be a LIST not an article about an issue! Not to sound like a broken record, but how can there even be room for conjecture ("Conceivably, however, Congress could...") in a factual LIST?! there is no need for "background" here, if that's your answer, we have plenty of other articles on the subject. Yes, I am biased against the various smoking bans, but it's a legal reality I acknowledge; so likewise, I request that those who disagree please keep their arguments for the validity and expansion of said bans to the op-ed pages, and just give us the list. I submit that the text above the table of contents, if any, should read as follows: "The following is a list of smoking bans in the United States." PERIOD. That's all this article is supposed to be, after all, no?I do agree that smoking should be banned in places where people work... Laughingman802 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Laughingman. If you look through the article's (long) history and the discussion below, the apparent reason for that paragraph is this. The article originally started with the one sentence you suggested. Then, someone changed it to mention that because there is no nationwide smoking ban, all US smoking bans are a product of state/local criminal laws and occupational regulations. Then, it was changed again to briefly discuss in terms of constitutionality why Congress can't enact a nationwide smoking ban. Then, it was changed again (and lengthened greatly) to make it more neutral, discussing how Congress potentially could, but has not. And that's where it stands. I'd like to see it changed to this: "The following is a iist of smoking bans in the United States. Congress has not enacted any nationwide federal smoking ban, so therefore smoking bans in America are entirely a product of state and local criminal and occupational safety and health laws." I think it could end there, without any further information. Thoughts? 75.87.64.27 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would change "criminal" to "statuatory", but other than that, I would find your suggestion for the wording acceptable (and kudos to you for that, 75, as I am a libertarian smoker and former bar-lover in a very chilly state which recently passed a ban, and am very cantankerous on the subject). Again, I see no need to go into any background on a list, but I can understand how the explanation of why some states/municipalities have a ban while others don't would be a point of interest for a reader not familiar with the United States legislative process. Your wording states the simple, factual reason (just that "Congress has not...") and provides links to such explanations of government levels and processes without leaning in any direction as to whether Congress could/should or could/should not. As it is currently worded, it reads like a proposal from one side, which is as inappropriate as it would be if I were to change it to read "In spite of questions regarding personal property rights and polls indicating only a 22% support for a national smoking ban, the following states have passed a smoking ban." I had read the earlier talk about it, but it seemed to be old and mostly about how to word a description of the way a federal smoking ban could theoretically be passed as opposed to whether or not such theory should be included. As someone who is fascinated by the legislative process and the Constitution, I do find the "conceivable method" interesting, even if I disagree with its drive and morality, and I'm not sure where it belongs, but it certainly does not belong as the introduction, as it reeks of bias, and it simply has no bearing given that this article is not really about the issue itself, rather just a statement of where bans have come to pass (or not pass). Part of me isn't comfortable with the inclusions of states without a smoking ban (given the title) and the mention of attempts to pass them, but I can accept it in the name of clarity (although I would like to see more detailed mention among the various states with smoking bans of previously rejected attempts to pass smoking bans, so as not to suggest that a ban is the proper norm and states that reject them are just being difficult while states that have adopted them suddenly rightly and unanimously did so, having just overlooked it before, instead of being legislatively worn down year after year by the Anti-smoking Mongols and Huns; also if any rejections of legislation are relevant to this list ostensibly for historical/informative purposes, then they all should be included). But if I have the time and inclination, I can get to that later. Anyway, I'd say I'm with you, good show. Laughingman802 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Worth

It's banned in Fort Worth but not listed, I don't know how to list things right. It went into effect in Jan this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.199.129 (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California

Why not make a separate page for California? (List of Smoking Bans in California) Its numerous cities have enacted a whole range of smoking bans, which are not really covered well.

More map discussion

Also, on the map page that's visible on the United States list of smoking bans, there needs to be a similar color for all states that've explicitly banned smoking in restaurants and have NO age-restiction exemption, and a seperate color for the 3 states that've banned smoking, if minors under a certain age(usually either 18 or 21) are allowed to work and/or enter inside a restaurant or bar. The 3 states, that have such an exemption, are Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. All other states that only exempt bars, casinos, and private clubs from smoking bans, DO NOT have an age-restriction exemption that allows such places to get around smoking bans. Finally, Oklahoma should have the same yellow color as other states do, since OK's ban covers all workplaces, and only exempts bars, and restaurants that have a ventilated smoking room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.91.114 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Bans

This was at the head of the "Other Bans" section. I've removed it for what I hope are obvious reasons. I believe SOME of the info contained within is likely legitimate, but without citations.....

If someone has sources (et al), feel free to merge back in, in a more appropriate manner.

Do not trust wikipedia it gives rong informationCalifornia has designated certain areas, such as all public schools and even prisons, as "tobacco-free" zones, where the possession of tobacco in any form (whether by students, parents, teachers, or others) is strictly prohibited indoors and outdoors. The sale and advertisement of tobacco is banned within 1000 feet (300 m) of educational facilities.

Shan 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

This is the table from which the map is generated. Please update it in-place if you have any changes.

state	smoke-free areas
AK	none
AL	none
AR	WR
AZ	WRB
CA	WRB
CO	WRB
CT	WRB
DE	WRB
FL	WR
GA	R
HI	WRB
IA	none
ID	WR
IL	WRB
IN	none
KS	WRB
KY	none
LA	WR
MA	WRB
MD	WRB
ME	WRB
MI	none
MN	WRB
MO	none
MS	none
MT	WRB
NC	none
ND	W
NE	none
NH	RB
NJ	WRB
NM	WRB
NV	W
NY	WRB
OH	WRB
OK	W
OR	WRB
PA	none
RI	WRB
SC	none
SD	WRB
TN	WR
TX	none
UT	WRB
VA	none
VT	WRB
WA	WRB
WI	WRB
WV	none
WY	none

Terminology

There seems to be some confusion over what exactly a "workplace" is -- Ortcutt appears to believe (based on the comments above) that it includes restaurants and bars, and thus we should use phrases like "non-hospitality workplaces" or "workplaces other than resturants and bars" when referring to typical offices and the like. On the other hand, the article is filled with dozens of uses of the term "workplace" which clearly are intended *not* to include restaurants and bars.

I have no opinion either way, as long as we're consistent between the map and the text of the article. What does everyone think? --Mike Schiraldi 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly there is no dispute that bars and restaurants are indeed workplaces, insofar as they are places of employment as much as any other workplace. Bars and restaurants are frequently singled-out in discussions of workplace smoking bans because they have frequently been specifically exempted from general workplace and public place smoking bans. Any instances in the text of the article where the phrase "workplaces" is used in a way that does not include hospitality workplaces should be corrected. Ortcutt 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point there, Ortcutt. But, you also have to remember that on the subject of smoking bans, 'hospitality workplaces', or all restaurants and bars, are classified differently than non-restaurants and/or bars are, when it comes to the types of businesses that people describe that are covered under smoking bans. Not to mention, when people write up smoking ban ordinances, they're always described differently than 'hospitality workplaces' are, so that's why too when I cite smoking bans on the Wikipedia List of Smoking Bans in the United States, I cite such businesses differently, than I do regular workplaces.

Anyway, I'll be happy, as long as the map problem I cited near the very top of the talk page, is fixed. And for the love of god, I'll end by saying that the List of Smoking Bans in the USA needs to be kept simple and easy to read, and that there should be NO posting about bans that were defeated/voted down some time ago(i.e. Manhattan, KS, Cave City, KY, Jefferson City, MO, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.91.114 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sections to which you object were correctly cited, were relevant, were not original research, and fit the purposes of the article. To not include them violates WP:NPOV. I have restored them. They are valuable information for anyone researching where there are - and are not - smoking bans in the United States.65.28.9.8 02:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update

Ortcutt et al: I'm not going to enter into the debate on how the map should be colored -- you guys hash something out, and whatever coloring you all agree on, i'll render a map per your specifications. But i'm not doing anything until a consensus is reached. --Mike Schiraldi 03:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with everything the way it is now. Ortcutt 06:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map needs to be updated with Iowa information. Is the SVG that the map was made from available? I can only find the PNG, and editing the vector file would be better. Ortcutt (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_states_smoking_bans-2007-07-28.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.169.234 (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to update the map to make Virginia red. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to edit an SVG file.75.87.64.27 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, something should be done about NC. The ban is law now, even if it doesn't take effect until January 2, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.4.12 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to edit the page, so someone else can do this. Elkhart, IN says it exempts bars. It does not. They were exempted for 1 year but that year is passed as of May 2009. http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?id=484393 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.249.163 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The eastern shore of VA needs to be colored the same color as the rest of the state of Virginia. Right now it is incorrectly colored white. Sincerely, User JFlip838 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.224.109 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TALBOT COUNTY MAYLAND

I know that you can not Smoke in restaurants and Bars what about Work places? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.66.234 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California Motor Vehicle and Minor Smoking Ban

The law actually took effect January 1, 2008. I've changed the (now expired) citation. It's sloppy work like this that keeps Wikipedia a laughingstock in intellectual circles. I've seen someone cite this article using 2009 as the date. The State Senator who proposed the legislation clearly states 2008 on her official website.

Happy New Years71.105.240.19 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory descriptor

Someone keeps deleting the introductory constitutional descriptor, which has been on this article for a long time, without discussing it here or really giving any rationale other than to call the introduction "flawed". It is both relevant to this article and discusses its terms. I have re-added it. 65.66.154.3 (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I keep deleting it because it implies, incorrectly, that, under the Tenth Amendment, Congress lacks the power to enact a federal smoking ban. This is simply wrong. Congress may ban smoking in public places using other powers under the Constitution, even if Article I does not grant to it the specific authority to do so. I have deleted the introduction as "flawed" because it misapprehends Congress's powers under Article I, and ignores the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution. It is a fundamental principle of Constitutional law that the Necessary and Proper Clause allows the federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers as long as those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

Congress could, for example, use its power to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to regulate tobacco, including where it is consumed, to enact a federal smoking ban. If Congress grants the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA could issue regulations restricting the use of tobacco in public. Congress could also use its powers under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) to make a state's access to certain federal funds contingent on the state adopting a statewide smoking ban. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) (holding that legislation withholding 5% of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a minimum 21-year-old drinking age was an appropriate exercise of its Taxing and Spending Power). Under Dole, Congress could, for example, make certain federal health-care funds contingent on a state passing a comprehensive smoking ban. Accordingly, the current introduction's language is misleading and incorrect. But you are right that the Tenth Amendment is relevant to this article.

In light of these reasons, I propose to edit the introduction as follows:

"Article I of the Constitution of the United States does not grant the United States Congress the specific power to regulate smoking or tobacco use. However, Congress could conceivably attempt to enact a federal smoking ban using, for example, the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) by regulating tobacco, including where it is consumed, or the Taxing and Spending Power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), by making a state's access to certain federal funds contingent on the state adopting a statewide smoking ban. But Congress has not yet tried to do so. Therefore, smoking bans in the United States are presently only a product of state and local criminal and occupational safety and health laws." Tgb1974 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Tgb1974[reply]

Tgb1974, you state propositions of constitutional law which are HIGHLY disputed. The idea that the "necessary and proper clause" allows the federal government to have unenumerated powers is not exactly something which the courts have set in stone; it is a specifically Earl Warren-like doctrinalist argument with which Alexander Hamilton and James Madison expressly disagreed, nor did John Marshall say that in McCulloch. Your interstate commerce argument also would fail under Morrison and Lopez. An act like the national minimum drinking age act would be proper under the current jurisprudence, but that's not a smoking ban (e.g. a similar act, TEA-21, requires open container laws under penalty of loss of highway funds, but seven states still refuse to enact them; that doesn't enact a national open container law). Nonetheless, because the current introductory descriptor is a decent compromise, I withdraw my objection. 65.28.9.8 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania

It would appear that Pennsylvania is about to pass a full smoking ban. It passed in the House and Senate is is awaiting the Governor's John Hancock. I don't have the time now to type up a proper description of the ban, but if anyone else gets around to it in the next few days it would be appreciated. Cshulse (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything in any of the sources that states that smoking individual apartments is not allowed - they are considered private residences once you step inside your apartment door, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.220.192 (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that, as I could not find a source to support it CTJF83Talk 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article says that PA law prohibits local municipalities from enacting stronger smoking bans, several Bucks County municipalities ban smoking in outdoor public parks, including Richland Twp. and Doylestown Twp.. Bill S. (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

I think that the map color for Virginia is incorrect, as well as the Virginia sub-section. The Commonwealth of VA does not differentiate between bars and restaurants (i.e. there are no "stand alone" bars, as all such places must serve food[1]). Therefore, the color of the map for Virginia should be pink, so as to reflect that smoking is banned in bar areas of restaurants, which is the closest thing to a bar in VA. The exceptions that are noted regarding separately enclosed areas apply both to food and bar areas of restaurants.Chernysh (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Look at the new Virginia statute. It differentiates between restaurants and bars. It only bans smoking in restaurants, not bars. It also doesn't touch other areas (like retail stores and other non-hospitality businesses), except as expressly metioned. The description and color are accurate. 64.216.141.90 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the legislation, you would also see that it is permitted in restaurants, so long as the area is separately ventilated. Smoking would be prohibited in restaurants and the bar areas of restaurants, unless either of these areas is separately enclosed. So either Virginia is pink, or it is grey. It should not be red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.165.32 (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia definitely should be colored pink. The red color description is wrong. This needs to be fixed.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) — The home state of Marlboro and the world's largest cigarette factory is set to ban most smoking in restaurants and bars.

Gov. Tim Kaine plans to sign legislation on Monday in Virginia Beach that takes effect Dec. 1.

Kaine worked for years for a total ban on smoking in all restaurants. The bill that lawmakers passed last month falls short of that but generally restricts smoking to separate rooms that have their own ventilation.

Virginia has grown tobacco for 400 years. Philip Morris churns out Marlboros and Virginia Slims at the world's largest cigarette factory in Richmond.

Richmond-based Philip Morris USA is a unit of Altria Group Inc.

Actually, Virginia should be colored gray. The "ban" allows for separate "smoking rooms" in bars and restaurants, and it doesn't touch most other workplaces. That's not a "smoking ban" in bars and restaurants. I'll update the map soon.75.87.64.27 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin

Smoking in Wisconsin restaurants and bars will be prohibited effective July 5, 2010. Can someone update the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericgingras (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be updated if and when it's signed into law by the Governor; same with North Carolina.75.87.64.27 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina

How come North Carolina is colored pink, but not white? It should be updated to be white, since I recall North Carolina's recently passed ban covers BOTH restaurants and bars. The 18 and up exemption for age-restricted businesses was also removed from the ban, before it was signed into law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.176.41 (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's because North Carolina's new law only will ban smoking statewide in bars and restaurants, not all other workplaces. Read the North Carolina section, as well as the new law (there's a link in the references).75.87.64.27 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

smoking is bad period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.146.138 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private clubs that are exempt only include non-profit private clubs. See under exceptions on http://tobaccopreventionandcontrol.ncdhhs.gov/smokefreenc/faq.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samward1965 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, all private clubs, including country clubs and city clubs, tend to be 17 USC 501(c)(3) non-for-profits. The new NC law exempts all of these. The section references a link to the relevant statute.75.87.64.27 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

The statement "Texas law is silent as to whether local governments may regulate smoking more stringently than the state," is somewhat misleading. Texas is a "home rule" state. Municipalities larger than 5000 population may adopt and amend a charter which allows local control so long as the local ordinances are not "inconsistent with" state laws and the state and federal constitutions. See: [2] Section 5, and [3] Subchapter E, Section 51.072. Anecdotally, the precept of home rule, and hence the devolution of powers to the local level, appears to be fairly strong in Texas.

-CBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.169.102 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your suggestion, though, is that Texas - like all other home rule states - enjoins conflicts between state laws and local ordinances. That is, if a local ordinance conflicts with a state statute, the state statute supersedes - preempts - the ordinance. Many states' statewide smoking laws that don't amount to bans say something like "nothing herein shall prohibit local governments from restricting smoking more stringently than this statute." Texas's does not. In MI today (also a "home rule" state), and in NJ, PA, WA, and NH before those states' statewide smoking bans, their statutes are/were like Texas's and were silent on the power of local governments; the courts noted that the state law was intended to permit some places (bars, restaurants, etc.) to allow smoking freely, and in those places local governments could not nullify that permission. See the sections on those states and those cases for more details. In Texas, this has not yet been tested in court. This is why there are no bar/restaurant smoking bans in MI today; the state law allows bars and restaurants to allow smoking, and an ordiance nullifying that conflicts with the state law and is preempted. In Texas, the state law potentially could be construed to permit some places to allow smoking freely, and if so then a city might not be allowed to nullify that state law. 64.216.143.195 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan

Michigan just passed a state-wide ban for all workplaces, bars, and restaurants, excluding the three downtown Detroit casinos for fear that the Indian-run casinos may have an advantage because they would not be affected by the ban. As soon as the bill is signed (should be within a week) the map needs to be updated. 17:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.173.207 (talk)

I do not understand why Michigan is white, as nearly every listing below it shows every county EXCLUDES bars AND restaurants, which means they allow smoking in them. Shouldn't Michigan's color be green instead? Are there no counties or cities in Michigan which DO ban smoking in bars and restaurants? Stopde (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article makes abundantly clear, Michigan has had a statewide ban on smoking in all bars and restaurants (except in Detroit's casinos) since 2010. It superseded any local ordinances that didn't do so due to the Michigan Court of Appeals' 2003 decision involving Marquette. 108.212.211.52 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it's not abundantly clear, or I would have been able to understand it. You do not have to be obnoxious and condescending when a question is asked, in which the information on the page is ambiguous at best. Whoever wrote the section on Michigan, needs to write it so that is comprehensible, as they have written it in such a way to make it seem that no smoking ban seems to have been issued at all. Stopde (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No smoking bans

I think that you should have a separate link in this one for separate states I think that would be more efficient and people would be able to get the information that they need a lot faster and it would be way more convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.250.115 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri

It appears there is a lack of consistency between the entries in the section "Localities in Missouri with a smoking ban that includes all bars and restaurants" and "Localities in Missouri with a smoking ban that does NOT include all bars and restaurants". In each section there are entries wth minor caveats such as that smoking is allowed in private clubs. Or said another way, there are entries in the "NOT all bars" section which IMO more properly belong in the "all bars" section because what few exemptions they have are so circumscribed as to be all but immaterial. And are in any case the same exemptions as other entries already found within the "all bars" section.

It appears the two categories are structured to create a distinction which isn't really a practical difference in many cases. Unless there is some political agenda here to attempt to portray each ban in as minimal a light as possible. Which if true is hardly in the NPOV spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.219.207 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific localities in the "not all bars and restaurants" section do you think should be included in the "all bars and restaurants" section? I looked through the "not" section and each one of the localities listed there exempts some bars outside of private clubs (and in many cases exempts restaurants and other businesses, too). Conversely, none of the localities in the "all bars" section exempts any bars or restaurants whatsoever. There doesn't seem to be any non-NPOV political agenda. All the other states have these sections, too. Missouri's is just more detailed.75.81.49.86 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada partial repeal, please update map

Nevada has repealed part of its smoking ban. Smoking is now allowed in taverns that serve food and alcohol and prohibit minors, it is also now allowed in areas of restaurants that are physically separated from the non-smoking areas, as long as minors are prohibited in the room. Since smoking is allowed again in designated areas of restaurants, the color should be changed from yellow to green on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.233.131 (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio, October 2011

Wow. That's a whole lot of POV and bad sourcing. Let's take this edit-by-edit.

Edit #1 "Correction" - The "correction" here is the removal of the best sources in the article )Business Week, the Ohio Department of Health and The Columbus Dispatch in favor of a blog, a non-notable "opposition group" and a Page Not Found warning at CantonRep.com.
Edit #2 (no edit summary) - Just a bit of tweeking of the prior edit.
Edit #3 "Typo" - True enough.
Edit #4 "Update" - Having previously removed the court case sourced to Business Week, the editor now gives us a new court case (I think it is... there's no way to tell) with part of the law allegedly being found unconstitutional and the State Supreme Court set to rule on the rest tomorrow. This is sourced to... um... editing the article?
Edit #5 "Typo" - True enough.

If any of this meets our verifiability requirement, feel free to explain how. Until such time, I'm reverting it all. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New title

This page has been moved from its previous title, 'list of smoking bans in the US', in order to remain in line with other articles on the subject, not least the worldwide list of smoke-free laws. The latter title was itself changed for two standard Wikipedian reasons. The first is that of common name, as although the term 'smoking ban' continues to be used often enough in English speaking news media, it is not the term used by organizations involved in forming or applying such regulations - and a colloquialism can be dealt with quite simply through a redirect and a brief mention in the introductory text. The second, perhaps stronger reason, is to remove ambiguity; 'smoking ban' suggests prohibiting smoking per se, which with the possible exception of Bhutan is almost never attempted in reality, most smoke-free laws regulating simply where one may smoke rather than whether. This improvement appears uncontroversial to me so I have 'been bold' and made the move - however, if it raises concerns, or if fellow Wikipedians feel the article will benefit from further discussion, this is the place to do it.Hypocaustic (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without any discussion whatsoever, Hypocaustic has systematically attempted to change every mention of the term "smoking ban" on the English Wikipedia to "smoke-free law." I would propose that, under basic WP:UCN and WP:MOVE principles, the title "smoking ban" is more appropriate because it is far more common and the unilateral move was absolutely improper. Hypocaustic's reasoning that "smoking ban," while obviously more commonly used, is "not the term used by organizations involved in forming or applying such regulations," inherently violates WP:NPOV. If Hypocaustic wants this moved, he/she should propose it in the proper channels.Wikophile (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a few key points may have slipped through the cracks here, so thanks for raising the challenge to allow for further discussion on the subject Wikophile. The use of the term 'smoke-free law' in preference to 'smoking ban' certainly isn't unilateral or undiscussed - it has evolved over time, internationally, and is now the recognised description in the field. It sounds as if some further discussion / exploration of that evolution may be useful in providing reassurance that this isn't just one contributor's personal preference or whim, however - so it would be useful to know if there's anything specific about the term which concerns you or appears unclear. NPOV concerns are indeed important but are more likely to argue for the very change I have contributed - pejorative uses of 'ban', 'banning' and conflations of smoke-free regulations with outright prohibition of smoking are frequent amongst commentators intending to argue a specific position against such smoke-free laws. This is an encyclopaedia rather than a media-speak dictionary, after all, so redirecting readers from widely-used colloquialism to commonly-used descriptive term is arguably perfectly appropriate. As for the proper channels, as I understand it these are they - let's go ahead an discuss it. I'll undo your reverts as far as possible for now as the facts suggest that the move is indeed fully in line with Wikipedian principles, but if you can show a properly argued case against it (avoiding any abusive phraseology in you comment headings please), please do.Hypocaustic (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the proper channel. You should propose a requested move, per WP:MOVE.Wikophile (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a matter of opinion, Wikophile. As I understand, straightforward moves are accepted and, indeed, encouraged, where the issue is uncontroversial. On the substance of the issue, it does indeed appear uncontroversial; you have certainly made it clear that you dislike the move, but have not yet actually addressed the point that 'smoking ban' and 'smoke-free law' have different nuances and, therefore, different meanings. Rather than simply overturning an edit which you dislike, let's hear your reasoning, if you have a legitimate concern. Mud-slinging only leads to edit wars, and that helps no-one.Hypocaustic (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "uncontroversial." Two different editors now have reverted your unilateral attempts to change every mention of the term "smoking ban" on the English Wikipedia to "smoke-free law" or some derivation thereof. Per basic WP:UCN, the most common term used in the English language for a type of law or regulation restricting or prohibiting smoking in some places - "smoking ban" - should be the phrase titling these articles. That has been the name of these articles for many years, and you are the only one to propose changing it. Such a sweeping change should go through the normal channels - i.e. a requested move, allowing posting on the noticeboard and a full community discussion. Moreover, your reason for desiring this change seems to be a connection to the topic (I notice that the majority of your edits have to do with smoking and its regulation), posing WP:ACTIVIST, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:COI issues. In any case, don't unilaterally move these again. Use the WP:RM process.Wikophile (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks 'Wikophile', I can see where you're coming from more clearly now. It does appear that this development was indeed uncontroversial in its substance, until controversy was retrospectively ignited by you and, as you rightly point out, one other username. We may, as a result, have to go through a more convoluted process to deal with your (as yet unsupported) objections as a result, it is true. It would perhaps be in Wikipedia's interests for you to examine the subject a little more dispassionately in preparation for any such formalised discussion; language evolves, and encyclopaedias do too, which is why this website is not just a reprint of a multi-volume publication from 1912. As for your comments on my perspective, naturally I'm flattered that you've looked up my contribution record but you may be confusing expertise with advocacy - I do indeed know what I'm talking about, but I don't work in this field and my contributions here are intended to improve the quality and salience of Wikipedia, not to push a personal point of view. Can you honestly say the same?Hypocaustic (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana

Over the past couple of days, several editors have tried to add in information that Indiana has enacted a statewide smoking ban. This is untrue. A smoking ban exempting bars passed the Indiana Senate late yesterday, but it now must go to the Indiana House and, from there, to the Governor. Thus, as of today, it has not been enacted. And while it might eventually be enacted (at which point it would merit inclusion in this article), due to the number of exemptions in the law this is far from certain, as the Indianapolis Star reported this morning: [4]. As of now, however, Indiana has not enacted a statewide smoking ban of any kind, as the present version of this article correctly reports. 75.87.67.80 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana-wrong color on the map

The text of the article reads that:

"The law exempts: (1) horce racing facilities; (2) riverboats; (3) all indoor portions of casinos and other licensed gaming facilities; (4) cigar bars and hookah lounges; (5) private clubs; (6) retail tobacco stores; (7) bars and taverns (defined as any business with a liquor license that does not allow in persons under 21 years of age); and (8) cigar manufacturers.[81]"

Apparently only bars and taverns are excluded, not ordinary restaurants. Shouldn't the color of the map be yellow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.162.34 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new Indiana law excludes any business with a liquor license that doesn't allowing in patrons under 21. Unlike states with a purely "bar" exemption, it doesn't require a certain amount of liquor sales to qualify as a bar. So, just like TN, AR, and NV, it exempts restaurants, too, that have a liquor license and limit patronage and employment to adults. Read the text of the ban, which is linked in the article. Wikophile (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Tennessee colored on the map?

This article says about Tennessee:

"Statewide smoking ban excluding bars, some restaurants, and all adult-only venues: On July 1, 2007, after being signed into law in May 2007, the Non-Smoker Protection Act went into effect, banning smoking statewide in all enclosed workplaces in Tennessee, except as exempted.[318] The Act exempts (1) any business, including a bar or restaurant, that does not serve persons under 21, (2) designated hotel/motel smoking rooms, (3) tobacco industry-related facilities, (4) outdoor areas and areas with an open garage door, (5) nursing homes, (6) designated smoking areas not accessible to the general public in businesses with three or fewer employees, (7) private clubs, (8) private residences and vehicles unless it is being used for child care, daycare, or public transportation of children, (9) retail tobacco stores, and (10) commercial vehicles occupied solely by the operator." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.162.34 (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee was mis-colored for a long time, so I fixed it with the most recent update. Read the above text and the Tennessee law linked as a reference: it exempts any business in the state of any kind that doesn't allow in persons under 21. This includes bars, restaurants, and non-hospitality businesses. So, Tennessee doesn't completely ban smoking in bars, in restaurants, or in any non-hospitality businesses. Thus, it doesn't qualify for any of the three colors. Wikophile (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikophile rental car agencys do not 'serve' persons under 21 yet smoking is banned in these facilities. The '21 and up' provision is exclusive to businesses that serve alcohol. Provision was written exclusively for that purpose and Tennessee should reflect as such. 2607:FB91:2F18:C8D1:ECF7:5B66:BBFB:83DF (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of smoking bans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on List of smoking bans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on List of smoking bans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of smoking bans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/us/new.york.smoking.ban_1_smoking-on-public-beaches-smoking-ban-secondhand-smoke?_s=PM:US

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of smoking bans in the United States. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_846_bill_20030908_chaptered.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210110244/http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C100-199/1910000769.HTM to http://moga.mo.gov/statutes/C100-199/1910000769.HTM
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebBillStatus/main.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of smoking bans in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 67 external links on List of smoking bans in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of smoking bans in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of smoking bans in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the section Smoking related damages in the United States

I removed the last section of the page rather than putting a {{Refimprove section}} template on it, I removed it. If someone thinks that this content added anything to the article you can put it back, however it seems that this content was completely irrelevant to any smoking ban in the United States. This content also did not cite any sources and may have been original research, removed per Wikipedia:No original research. Cocoaguy ここがいい 16:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please see my edit Cocoaguy ここがいい 16:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map's color's were inaccurate (vastly so), so I removed it until that can be rectified. For example, states like NY, NJ were colored white, which only means banned in workplaces, yet this is not accurate. In those "white" colored states on the map, it is banned also in Bars, Etc.. 173.241.188.47 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bars are workplaces. The label for white was "banned in all workplaces." Nothing needs to be changed. Needforspeed888 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should state banned in all INDOOR workplaces. I don't believe it is banned outdoors. When one writes "banned in all workplaces", that is a slippery slope. I don't think the guy getting shopping carts in the parking lot of Target is banned from smoking outdoors, considering his workplace IS the outdoor parking lot. I don't think a construction worker who works outdoors, or someone paving highways is banned from smoking in his (outdoor) workplace. Can we perhaps reach a consensus as to what constitutes a "workplace"? For now, I will add the word "indoor". Let me Know your thoughts, everyone. 173.241.188.47 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable. Needforspeed888 (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. Sounds good. Someone might want to consider adding similar language to Bars too. In most states, smoking in OUTDOOR Bars, is still permitted. Usually, the restrictions only apply indoors. Even many Bars that ban smoking inside, allow it in their outdoor seating area. 173.241.188.47 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Georgia Gwinnett College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]