Studies post-ban haven’t shown that. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/12_0327.htm

Studies from the "center of disease control and prevention" haven't shown that. Hardly the best source to pick a study that says "the smoking ban hurt businesses".

Do you have a criticism that goes deeper than pointing to the name of an organization?

Don't need to, I find that this is a good enough filter for a pareto 80% of cases.

Referencing an 80/20 rule doesn't make ad hominem nonsense okay.

Ad-hominen means "directed at the person". I pointed to a source of conflict of interest.

Nonsense means without logic or sense. I made an argument, amounting to that the source has a conflict of interest. You might disagree with it, and it might even not be the case, but it's perfectly logical. Hardly "nonsense". In fact, I find it irrefutable (There is a conflict of interest between the host of study and showing negative results from the smoking bank on businesses. Whether it affected the work is another matter).

It seems that for some reason you expect me to bother debunking it tp provide "deeper criticism", but I have no such intention and have better uses of my time. For me, as I wrote, it is enough of a filter to avoid sources with conflicts of interest. YMMV.

Do you really believe one cannot (or shouldn't) point to a potential conflict of interest, if they don't at the same time give "deeper criticism"?

Note that I didn't even claim that the report is wrong. I literally only wrote who hosts it, and argued that it's "hardly the best source" regarding pro-smoking business interests.

Is that controversial?

Seems to me that a reasonable, limited, and (I'd argue) true, point, was met with hostility and unrelated demands, not to mention the rude "nonsense". Maybe you ought to think about it?

Do you mean the clean air everyone gets to breathe when they go out to eat now? I'm pretty sure a lot of people have been enjoying that.