In recent years, especially in the United States, the industry has shifted the focus to economic claims that smoke-free environments are disastrous for the hospitality industry, investing millions of dollars in restaurant associations (Dearlove et al., 2002) and Tubacin alpha-tubulin in the gaming industry (Mandel & Glantz, 2004). These claims continue to be pressed vigorously to oppose legislation, despite the fact that all high-quality independently funded and peer-reviewed research regarding the effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry has consistently shown no effect or a positive effect on revenue (Hahn, 2010; Scollo, Lal, Hyland, & Glantz, 2003). It remains a challenge to educate restaurateurs and others in the hospitality industry, who often become (unknowingly) the foot soldiers for the tobacco industry in its effort to halt or delay the smoke-free movement.

RESEARCH TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENTS Many countries and subnational entities have assessed the extent of SHS exposure in their efforts to advance and evaluate the development, implementation, and enforcement of smoke-free legislation (Breysse & Navas-Acien, 2010). SHS exposure can be measured using questionnaires, environmental markers (personal or area monitoring), and biomarkers (Samet, 1999). Objective measures of SHS (in the environment or in the human body) are excellent tools to quantify exposure and its health effects, educate policy makers and the public about the importance of smoke-free legislation, and evaluate the impact of legislation after implementation.

Environmental Measures of SHS The most widely used methods for determining SHS exposure in indoor public places and workplaces are airborne nicotine and PM <2.5 ��m (PM2.5) (Barnoya et al., 2007; Hyland, Travers, Dresler, Higbee, & Cummings, 2008; Liu et al., 2010; Lopez et al., 2008; Navas-Acien et al., 2004; Nebot et al., 2005). Airborne SHS studies generally measure nicotine for several days, reflecting time-weighted average concentrations over the period of assessment. PM2.5 studies generally measure air PM during short periods of time (minutes or hours), reflecting concentrations during actual occupancy. The main advantage of nicotine over PM2.5 is that it is tobacco specific. Measuring PM2.5 concentrations has the advantage of providing immediate information on SHS levels and allowing comparisons with safety standards.

Additionally, no permission is required to measure PM2.5 as it can be done discretely using a portable machine. On the other hand, air nicotine measurements require the establishments�� permission to place the monitor. In addition to direct environmental SHS measurements, mathematical models can be used to estimate exposure according to different patterns of cigarette smoking Anacetrapib as well as to compare different control measures.