Skip to comments.
The Facts About The Smoking Ban. If you're a business owner or not, this is a must read!
The Facts Online ^
| 11-01-03
| Dave Hitt
Posted on 11/06/2003 7:28:30 AM PST by SheLion
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 441 next last
To: Liberal Classic; cinFLA
You are correct and our Florida friend is not.
In his comments regarding the Delaware smoking ban he is very lacking in exactly what happened there.
His continual harping on the Delaware law is starting to lead me to believe he thinks the legislature is the way to go as opposed to a biased one-sided funded ballot initiative such as they had in Florida.
Compared to the 5 or so million dollars the anti-smokers spent in Florida, they spent nothing in Delaware. Even with an initial push by Philip Morris against the Florida ban I don't even think 1 million was spent - and PM pulled out of the battle months before it went on the ballot - it was totally a grasssroots effort in the end.
In Delaware it was a total grassroots effort from smokers, and bar and restaurant owners. We were toast - because the anti-smokers had so much money to run newspaper, radio, and TV ads, along with mass mailings and email campaigns. The campaign of lies.
201
posted on
11/06/2003 7:23:49 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
To: Phantom Lord
It reminds me of Orwell's 1984. Will the jusidictions be using Telescreens?
202
posted on
11/06/2003 7:32:04 PM PST
by
oldtimer
(t)
To: hotshot
I know we have agreed to disagree on this issue - but I do have to take issue with this particular coment of yours....
Second hand smoke causes asthma.
There is absolutely nothing to back up that statement in the way of scientific proof.
I will not deny that SHS may bring on an asthma attack - but it didn't cause the asthma to begin with.
Just the fact that there are more and more places where no one is going to be exposed to SHS and rates of asthma cases are nearly skyrocketing shows that statement to be false.
I was born in 1960, a time when smoking was much more prevalent than it is now. If exposure to smoking caused asthma, why was I nearly 30 before I ever met anyone who had asthma? Another question, why are so many children being diagnosed with it when the numbers of smoking parents (and particularly pregnant mothers) is on the decline?
203
posted on
11/06/2003 7:36:59 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
To: Legerdemain
no, but you can't stop me from driving my car on my 500 acres I own....damn, you can't stop my 13 year old kid from driving there either.I have no intention of depriving you or your son of driveng, just making the point that most of the things we do, are not detailed in the constitution.
204
posted on
11/06/2003 7:57:29 PM PST
by
Great Dane
(You can smoke just about everywhere in Denmark.)
To: cherinfl; cinFLA
I don't lie or use false data!!!!!!!!!! I don't have to, they do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't provide info for Florida - I no longer live there and have never worked there - but I sure do have details for Delaware.
I'm sure you can imagine my being a little bit annoyed with someone in Florida claiming to know better about what is going on or has gone on in Delaware.
205
posted on
11/06/2003 8:16:22 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
To: Gabz
It's a shame there hasn't been a story about the Maryland establishments that are close to the Delaware line - they are BOOMING!!!!!! But there won't be such a story, because the papers that do cover those areas already have editorial positions in favor of smoking bans and will never do a story that shows the harm the Delaware ban has done in Delaware or the good it has done in Maryland. The same with New Jersey, All the stories about how New Jersey is benefiting from the New York Smoking ban are from New York sources, None of the New Jersey papers have a word to say about it.
Actually the worst thing of all was Bloomberg calling the Delaware ban a big success in Sept. and Oct. of 2002 even though the ban didn't go into effect until that Thanksgiving and no one in the press called him on it.
heck after the ban went into effect in Delaware most of the money my husband and I normally spent when we went out started going to Maryland. and let me tell you - those bartenders and waitstaff in Maryland LOVE the ban in Delaware.
Same here but my money stays in NJ, After the ban went into effect in NYC I stopped going. Before the ban I was there all the time. New Jersey has a lame bar closing time of 2 or 3am depending on the town while NYC never sleeps and after the bars closed in NJ we used to get on the bus (Which convienately the bus stop is outside the bars in my town and it's a short 10 minute ride and it runs all night) and head into the city and there was always a few other groups who did the same. Not anymore I go to the diner or just go home and everybody else seems to do the same and that bus is now always empty. The only time I go into the city is when I have to pass through it when visiting family/friends on Long Island and even then I will go out of my way and take the 59th street bridge instead of the Queens-midtown tunnel just to deny Bloomberg the toll.
The same when the ban went statewide, I haven't spent a cent in any of the bars/restaurants whenever I go back to my other location upstate. When I have wanted to go out I have taken a boat across Lake Champlain to the bars in Vermont or drove up to Montreal (Yeah, Wonderful I have to go to a foriegn country because America isn't free anymore).
I'm so happy I don't live in Delaware anymore.... But they are not rid of me. I'm only an hour away from the southern line and only 2 hours from the capitol. After being there for better than 20 years I've got too much history to just walk away. And my friends in the hospitality industry know I won't forget them.
I am happy I don't live in New York anymore, Before the ban I worked and lived in both NJ & NY after the ban I switched permanetly to NJ, Not just because of the ban but it was the last straw. I still go back often because of family and friends (though because of the way NY is just going to hell they are also leaving in droves) and because the Adirondack Park is just the most beautiful place in the world to give up.
206
posted on
11/06/2003 8:16:51 PM PST
by
qam1
(Don't Patikify New Jersey)
To: Gabz
And using anything with Stanton Glantz's name on it is bogus - he has publicly stated that if a study isn't coming up with the results he wants it gets scrapped (I'm paraphrasing) The euphemism ole Stan the sham uses for scrapping a study doesn't come up the way he wants he claims is the study wasn't the best designed study.
From his study looking at 97 other studies (Many/Most of which were his own previous ones)
Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry
Conclusion: All of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact.
Well who do you think defines which are the best designed studies, He does of course and any study that didn't come to his conclusion of course didn't make it as a best designed study.
207
posted on
11/06/2003 8:37:27 PM PST
by
qam1
(Don't Patikify New Jersey)
To: Great Dane
I have no intention of depriving you or your son of driveng, just making the point that most of the things we do, are not detailed in the constitution.
And most of these things do not need regulation by the government, either local, state, or Federal....give me a break.............
I'm the guy who put up that page, to prove that the claim that bans are good for business is yet another nanny lie. I've only been gathering data for about two weeks, and have listed nearly 100 business so far.
If you know of any business that have either closed, or been harmed by smoking bans, please send the information to me at
hittman@davehitt.com. At the minimum I need the name of the business, the % of business lost (unless it's closed, in which case I just plug in 100%), and the city and state. It's also helpful to have a street address for the business, and as much contact information about the owner that you can supply. (Mailing address, e-mail address, and phone number is preferred. This information isn't made public, but I keep it for my own use in case I need it later.) Quotes from the owners are helpful too. Information about bars, restaurants, and bar/restaurant combos is welcome, but I also can use information about distributors, bingo halls, bowling alleys, private clubs, and charities that have been hurt by bans.
I'm also collecting articles about places being harmed by bans, so send me any URLs you have that cover those types of stories.
I'm glad to see that this has caused so much conversation. I don't have time to look at all the comments right now, but will try to sometime in the next day or two.
It's rather amusing to see someone quoting from Tobacco Control as if a meta study by them would be worth more than a thimble of warm spit. Meta analysis are usually garbage no matter who does them they're very difficult to do well and very, very easy to fake and manipulate. When they're done by an anti-smoker organization, only a complete idiot would give it any credence.
You'll find that nanny groups sponsor virtually all studies of the effects of bans. They have never, to my knowledge, done a study limited to taverns. Rather, they include places that were already non-smoking, like fast food joints, coffee houses, and delis, and places that will suffer minimal impact, like family oriented restaurants, places that cater to yuppies, and large chain restaurants. Simple inflation makes for an increase, which they then use as "proof" that business increased because of the ban.
If they were ever to do one on taverns, bingo halls, and places that cater to blue collar or rural clientele, the results would be so glum even they (who are experts at lying with numbers) would be hard pressed to hide the real damage their hate-inspired legislation causes.
209
posted on
11/06/2003 9:02:45 PM PST
by
Hittman
To: hotshot
I'm terribly sorry to hear your son has asthma.
But the smoking of others did not cause it.
What bothers me is that you also know that, yet are sounding like you would prefer the government limit where smoking is permitted as opposed to a parent not taking his child somewhere that smoking is permitted.
""Unless you smoke outside away from everyone, you are causing future misery without any consideration of anyone else.""
That's a pretty declartive statement with nothing to back it up. Other than the fact you dislike tobacco smoke, why are you continuing to promote the lies of the anti-smokers? There is no proof that exposure to the tobacco smoke of others causes anything other than annoyance in anyone that does not have a pre-existing health problem.
210
posted on
11/06/2003 9:03:33 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
To: Legerdemain
And most of these things do not need regulation by the government, either local, state, or Federal....give me a break.............THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT.....
211
posted on
11/06/2003 9:10:38 PM PST
by
Great Dane
(You can smoke just about everywhere in Denmark.)
To: Hittman
212
posted on
11/06/2003 9:32:07 PM PST
by
qam1
(Don't Patikify New Jersey)
To: VermiciousKnid
Unless you smoke outside away from everyone, you are causing future misery without any consideration of anyone else. And that is the strawman argum,ent from the gnatzies - businesses will not be hurt. Busines wlll no be hurt??? my left foot.
213
posted on
11/06/2003 10:00:38 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
To: SheLion
214
posted on
11/06/2003 10:47:34 PM PST
by
Revolver
("Dont ask me silly questions, I wont play silly games)
To: Gabz
You admit that something you do on purpose annoys someone. Thank you for your honesty.
215
posted on
11/06/2003 11:05:49 PM PST
by
hotshot
To: Gabz
The answer is as simple as the houses we grew up in. Insulation was unknown until the 50's. All of the houses built in the 60's and 70's have none or little until the energy crisis of the 70's. I have built solar houses so tight I had to install an air to air heat exchanger to get fresh air into the house. Now we wrap them in plastic with glass insu. and styrofoam to get R-20+. Both of my parents smoked all my life, I did not not notice. The second story didn't even have heat. We had our cloths under covers with us to get dressed in the winter mornings.
216
posted on
11/06/2003 11:23:45 PM PST
by
hotshot
To: StriperSniper
Yeah, don't you just love those forfeiture stories?
217
posted on
11/06/2003 11:26:49 PM PST
by
ohmage
To: TheOtherOne
If you think smoking is a Constitutional right, that is your first problem. Obviously, you're another FR Totalitarian who thinks that the Constitution gives rights, rather than protecting God given rights and limiting government and what YOU, the totalitarian, are able to use government to do to other Americans.
218
posted on
11/07/2003 5:00:25 AM PST
by
xrp
To: TheOtherOne
Businesses should be able to get Smoking Licenses, just like the can apply for and get liquor licenses. That way, the default for businesses will be non-smoking, but any that choses can become a smoking establishment.
Why license it? At best all that does is provide money and jobs to bureaucrats. At worst it lets them limit and control it above and beyond what the owners would do.
Simply requiring a "smoking permitted in this establishment" sign at each entrance accomplishes the same thing without governmental interference.
-Eric
219
posted on
11/07/2003 5:06:11 AM PST
by
E Rocc
(Senator Robert Byrd voted against the Iraq package because he couldn't rename the country "Byrd".)
To: E Rocc
Simply requiring Who's going to require it? What will you do if people don't?
Give me a break, that is regulation, just an ineffective one.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 441 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson