Posted on 02/14/2005 5:26:50 AM PST by SheLion
HALLOCK, Minn. - On Dec. 18, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the Grand Forks Tobacco Free Coalition at the Alerus Center. After listening to the panel members and researching both sides of the issues, and having lived in California when the smoking ban was instituted there, I strongly urge the Grand Forks City Council and other agencies to take no action on the issue at this time, except to research the facts on both sides.
Why? First, the health issue is seriously questionable. As the American Council on Science and Health has put it, "the role of environmental tobacco smoke in the development of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease is uncertain and controversial."
The term that comes to my mind is "comparative risk." That is, if you were to compare the risk of secondhand smoke to other risks found in homes and workplaces, you'd find little real difference, especially if those other risks were subject to the same scrutiny that secondhand smoke has endured.
Second, the economic issue is distorted, and our area cannot afford the risk that the same thing that happened in California will happen here. As someone who lived through California's non-smoking program, let me lend some insight as to its real effect.
The smoking ban in California was a failure. For one thing, it was accomplished through lies, exaggeration and bureaucratic gamesmanship. The lies included the health risks (for example, the statement that 50,000 people die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke) and false representations of health studies (check the World Health Organization and other groups on this).
The distortions included what the estimated economic impact would be on all workplaces. Minimal, the activists said. The reality proved different. The loss in productivity (from smokers having to leave the workplace to smoke) and jobs (from scores of restaurants and bars closing and other businesses moving) was substantial.
If you are not traveling, then bars and restaurants are a luxury. They're an activity on which customers choose to spend their discretionary dollars.
As the Bismarck Tribune pointed out in its editorial against smoking bans, smoking and food go together. So when restaurants force smokers out into the area's cold weather, those smokers do not go out to eat. They stay home and keep an equal number of non-smokers with them.
The result is a 40 percent to 60 percent loss in sales for bars and restaurants with bars. In California, this meant the closing of almost all non-chain restaurants and bars six months to three years after a smoking ban. And that was in a state where the weather does not deter smoking outside; you can expect a greater impact here.
In addition, many smokers are older or retired people, and pushing them outside in weather that lately has been dangerously cold probably would create higher health costs than would the status quo.
The well-financed special interests against the legal activity of smoking will coerce legislators into making a major mistake. Please let your representatives know that they should have all the facts before acting.
Troy is former economic development director of the Kittson County (Minn.) Office of Economic Development.
"What can a business owner do? Even if he wasn't forced to do this by law, he would still alienate a huge amount of non-smokers if he didn't accomodate their wishes."
Actually, that is the choice he makes. He will decide to cater to the smokers, the non smokers or both. This will drive the decision to invest in capitol equipment and it will drive the overall direction of the business. All of that is considered against potential profit for the investment and effort.
An example of a business formula that restricts smoking is either a grocery store or a clothing store. On the other side of that coin, a convenience store may decide to allow smoking. I've seen both.
Another real world example is a blues bar/restaurant in my area opened up after an extensive, and expensive, refurbishment. They decided to be smoke free. The first time I went to this bar to watch a band I was shocked they would be smoke free, but I respected their policy and did not smoke. I did notice that people were leaving and they had a lot of empty seats.
A couple of weeks later I went back, fully prepared to respect their policy. I noticed people smoking in the bar area and the hostess told me that so many people complained and left that they decided to offer the ability to smoke at the bar, but not in the rest. area. I complied and enjoyed being able to relax with a cig at the bar. About a month later I went back and noticed they actually set up a smoking section in the restaurant area. The hostess let me know that to many people complained and left because they couldn't see the band from the bar area.
The phenomonon that occured after that was amazing. Their business picked up and people started talking about hte place as a really fun place. However, after the place would fill up and people started to smoke, the place became filled with smoke and it was very uncomfortable. What occured is that people figured this out and began to chose alternative venues where both the smokers and non smokers could be comfortable.
Now that very nice bar/resturant has gone under, been sold, re-refurbished into a new venue. The lesson, well the bar owner made the assumption that a smoke free market existed in the blues bar industry. He spend a lot of money to start the club, and based on his assumption he chose not to install a robust air filtration system. That choice led to him losing a lot of money and wasting a lot of his time. Had he decided to cater to both smokers and non smokers, he would have installed a filtration system during the refurb and he would still be in business today.
That is how it should be. He took a gamble and if the business model paid off he would be rewarded, however it didn't. The market punished his poor business decision.
So why is it that they can influence legislative, or whatever, to support their "obsessions" and get their wishes for control acted upon?
This doesn't really have much to do with smoking, for me. I know I should quit. My problem is being TOLD that I must quit or I will be treated like a third class citizen. That makes me want to walk right up to them and light one up right in front of their faces ... ya know?
Not surprising it was a failure ... you are eliminating a HUGE section of bar goers this way.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That is the answer in a nutshell.
Thanks. Of course it is. I realized after I had posted that this was, as always, the answer ... throw enough dollars and you'll always get your way.
Besides, they always act like they are doing it for a noble cause, to benefit mankind, and I guess that can open quite a few doors too.
It must be hard to counteract their methods because there probably are not too many media outlets willing to expose the facts that you guys are showing here. Luckily, the 'net is becoming the choice for info of more and more people.
A truer statement was never made.
I hate big tobacco too, because they sold us out to protect themselves and their stockholders in the Master Settlement Agreement with our government.
You probably already know this, but I'm going to repeat what they did to us in that agreement. Every penny of that over $200 billion dollar penalty/settlement was passed on to smokers in an retail cost increase of about $.60 per pack, with our government's blessing. It was like a new federal tax without the benefit of any legislation. For betraying smokers, big tobacco bargained to protect themselves from many types of future prosecution and were guaranteed that new smaller tobacco companies would not be able to sell their products for less. With the gigantic tax increases imposed on cigarettes since, PM and the other major tobacco companies have been able to increase their profit margins by price increases hardly noticed by consumers.
Through the MSA, Big Tobacco has created a pact with our government and special interest groups, and couldn't care less about the people who purchase their products. They have every reason to sound just like their Anti partners. It's to their benefit. I am ecstatic about the Federal court decision in favor of the tobacco companies through the dismissal of racketeering conspiracy (RICO) charges, but only because it will ultimately save us money.
Phillip Morris negotiated the perfect example of "C.Y.A." Big Tobacco and our government are sounding more and more like "Animal Farm" in real life...remember, at the end of the book, when the farm animals noticed that they were having difficulty distinguishing between the farmers and the pigs, sitting inside at the table playing cards together?
I'm glad to hear I'm not alone. After several years of singing in the choir at both church services every Sunday, I just decided I'd had enough. Sincere belief can be quiet and does not require the walls of churches and their politics.
Great job, Garnet. You've got the basic premises down pat - but some of the details are slightly off.
The MSA has nothing to do with the federal government, it is only with 46 of the 50 states, it was between 40 and 45 cents per pack, not 60 cents, and the new companies are still able to sell their products for less.....although PM is trying to change that. A carton of Marlboro goes for $24 in these parts, the brand I buy (when I buy them) goes for less than $13.
There has been a copy of the MSA under my desk ever since I was able to get my hands on it in 1999. I have never worked for a tobacco company, but have been fighting bans & taxes and associated crapola since 1986 or '87.
Hi,
You got me. I was generalizing. It's good you corrected me. I was speaking from memory, and then I accidentally found an article today that explains and updates the MSA in detail. It also details the progress of the small independent Jeffrey Uvezian, International Tobacco Partners, in challenging the settlement. It's at http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1042 and the story is from Forbes.
You're right....and I should have specified it was the state Attorney Generals, but the price increase was across the board from the tobacco companies and had the same effect as an excise tax to the consumer. The original increase was $.45, then $.18 the next year, and $.19 more the year after that. So, two years after the settlement, the price increase total was $.82 per pack of cigarettes to the tobacco manufacturers!
Wow, you've been at this far longer than I have, but I remember reading about the MSA in the news. I was working for a financial investment firm at that time, and I didn't know anything about these issues. I just knew I was irritated about the way smokers were being treated, didn't like having to go outside for a cigarette and refused to apologize to anyone for smoking.
Which group do you know me from? I looked at your profile, (love the Cookie Monster) but that didn't tell me. BTW, I entered my profile on this site now too. If you would prefer to e-mail me personally, that's fine.....but I'm really curious. Also, thanks again for the warm welcome you and Texas Cowboy gave me yesterday.
I didn't mean to "get you" and no insult or offense was meant. And in return you did a good "gotcha" on me, regarding the incrementalism of the MSA "tax" - I had forgotten about that. Lately I've been paying far more attention to the various states trying to pull the NPMs further into it, as opposed to the entire picture.
The MSA was a nasty piece of work and smokers are the only ones that pay for it and I just wish more were aware of what it did and continues to do.....which is why I keep posting at places like this. You never know when someone might wake up.
Yes, I've been at this a very long time. My husband and I were talking about it last week.......I got involved in the issue while I was still married to my 1st husband - and I've been divorced from him more than 16 years. My ex was a smoker, but did not approve of my getting vocal when there was talk about banning smoking in private businesses (bars & restaurants) back in the late 80s in our town. of course he didn't approve of just about anything I did...but I do not wish to speak ill of the dead, he passed away over a week ago - which in part precipitated the conversation between my husband and I.
As to which group do I know you from? Pick anyone of the smoker's email lists and you will find that even though I don't post often, I'm on all of them. I am a VP of FORCES and on the BOD.
Thanks about the Cookie Monster.....she's going to be 7 and I guess I took that picture about 3 years ago. My activism comes after her.
Thank you very much. Your post was very helpful. So the state receives grant money from the RWJ Foundation for cigarrette bans??? I should have expected as much. I was wondering why so many states were RUSHING to ban smokes. IT WAS THE $$$$$$$$$. Now it makes sense.
The "got me" was in good humor. I should have added a "LOL". I wondered, after I posted, if anyone would notice. That article from Forbes is excellent for both a recap and update. I've learned so much in the past year.
I know so little about Forces, other than reading it, though they were the first pro-smoking website I learned about and the resources on it are endless. There is a lot of activity on this board. I've tried a couple of others in the past, but the posters just seemed to enjoy personally insulting each other and kept getting entirely off topic. They weren't worth the effort.
It's good to hear from and exchange ideas with new people. We need the visibility. I was on MyChoice.ca, but the Canadian webmasters didn't want Americans on their forum, so Michael McFadden and I were terminated--in spite of objections from several of the other members.
One more thing, what are NPM's?
NPMs = Non Participating Manufacturers.....it has to do with the MSA. In other words, the little guys or those that didn't exist when the MSA was signed in 1998.
If you're hanging with McFadden - you're in good hands. He's one of my favorite people. I've crashed out on his sofa in the past.....and he has spent his fair share of nights under our roof as well!!!!
Free Republic is a wonderful place, and the issue of tobacco is just an itsy-bitsy little issue here.....but it does get a fair hearing. Insults do happen here, as do getting off topic - but insults are dealt with swiftly and topics can be returned. Pretty much all opinions are welcome to be discussed around here, as long as they are not promoting left wing socialist programs without explanation.......this is a site for people of conservative leanings..........which is why SheLion and I (and others) have such a hard time with those who believe government smoking bans are so great.
Since you sent me such a personal thing about yourself, I want to commend you for trying to stay off alcohol and pray that God will bless you with strength and courage in your fight to remain sober and in your fight with depression. I don't think people who smoke are "bad" because it IS an addiction and we are fallible as human beings. Once you feel strong enough and have tackled this hurdle, you may decide to stop smoking. It would be a healthy thing for you (and put a little extra cha-chings in your pocket). My husband and I are going on the South Beach diet on Saturday as we've both put on a few pounds over the years. It's a very healthy way to eat and a nutritionist friend of mine says it's a very good eating plan. We may fail but we're going to go for it. God bless you!
When I think of what a real nazi was, and is, and about the Holocaust in general, your comment about me being a "smoking nazi" is extremely offensive. I wish people would quit using this word so freely and inaccurately. Nobody says you can't smoke or own cigs. Just don't do it in my face - it's pretty basic. Sorry for the delay in responding to you.
You are the narcissistic one Madame. Most people who have concerns about smoking in the workplace and so on have never told smokers they must stop smoking - just that we don't want to have it done in our "air space" if you will. I don't know what you don't or can't understand about this and that it is simply a matter of etiquette, courtesy and self-control. I notice that you and several others on here seem to resort to name calling, which doesn't make your point really.
For some reason, you seem to continue to want to make personal attacks against me. As for your little stab at psychoanalysis of someone whom you have neither met and have only communicated with on one small topic, it's just beyond ludicrous. I find all of this name-calling and trying to fit me into some goofball's book quite humorous actually. You do seem to take yourself a bit too seriously I am afraid.
When I think of all the really important things that matter in this world, I am somewhat perplexed at people that would actually take on such a feckless thing as their cause. Fine if you want to smoke - go for it. Just please, please, please don't do it in my face - okay???
Also, I see I hit a nerve with the sin remark. Don't take it so personal, kiddo. And sorry about the church you left. Don't blame God for human beings' failings. I'm sure you have failings yourself. Did I ever tell you that I am NOT a sinner? Of course I am. I do consider smoking a sin - only in that it pollutes the body. But I consider overeating a sin and drunkenness a sin. Have I done either of the last two? Yes. I am not self-righteous. I am a humble, grateful person that knows I need a Savior. You do, too.
I didn't go on here to make you mad. I just want you to see that most people who do not like smoking "do not like smoke." You guys want to make it personal, like we don't like YOU. It's not smokers. It's smoke. Unfortunately, where there are smokers, there is smoke.
I have talked to many people who have told me they truly enjoy their smoking. I have talked to others who have told me they hate it but can't stop. The bottom line is that there are people who probably enjoy overeating and being a lazy couch potatoe too or maybe even sleeping all darn day, but that doesn't make it good or something you want to endorse. If you are a parent, are you going to encourage your children to smoke? If not, why not? The answer is obvious.
You seem to have invested a lot of time in your group and your efforts to protect your smoking rights. I consider that far more controlling, because that says that your rights to enjoyment outweigh the rights of another who suffers when in the presence of smoke. My rights to enjoy golf do not outweigh my neighbor's right to not have me club a ball through his front window.
Gadz - now calm down. Calm down. No where on here have I ever said I want the U.S. Government to outlaw smoking or establish laws that would do so and I'm not sure why you jump to this conclusion.
Thank you for showing at least a little empathy but since you don't suffer from the ill effects of smoke you don't realize how easy it is to be in a situation where you are "forced" to endure it. I could give you several scenarios but I will give you one that comes to mind.
Every year our city's world-renowned orchestra gives a wonderful, free, performance in our downtown public square near the Fourth of July. Afterwards there is a very large fireworks display over the Terminal Tower. It's very enjoyable and spirited. Okay.... so you drive down and park and walk a ways to the square, schlepping along with your lawn chairs and your cooler and so on. You take some time to find the best spot to hear and see the orchestra and also view the fireworks. By the time the performance begins, the place is packed with thousands of people - like maybe 30,000 or more. Also, by this time you are going to stay put for two simple reasons: (1) there's no space left and (2) people will be really annoyed (and rightly so) if you start making all sorts of racking with your chairs and stuff moving it all around. Besides, you'll never get a space anyway. Last year was ruined for me because shortly before the concert, a couple of women (I could say something really derogatory, but I won't) came and squeezed in behind us off to the side a bit - I still don't know how they did it but they did. Not only did they yak, yak, yak but the one lady chain-smoked and it wafted right over to me. It made me gag so bad I actually cried. I could have left and ruined my husband's night but I just endured it. What can I say? I think it's very rude and very inconsiderate.
A lot of people just don't want to believe that smoke is toxic, but just smoke near a pet or baby and you'll see that they will be distressed.
Anyway, sorry for the long story, but you asked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.