Posted on 11/14/2005 7:44:32 AM PST by Namyak
HARRISBURG -- Mary Molinaro loves bingo, but it's been ages since she's played.
"They smoke up a storm in those bingos. It gives me a headache," said Mrs. Molinaro, 72, of Glassport.
That's why she's hoping for the passage of legislation that would prohibit smoking in all public workplaces, including restaurants, stores, sports arenas, bars and, yes, bingo halls.
Violators would be subject to fines of up to $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second violation within one year and $500 for subsequent violations in the same year.
Similar bills have been proposed over the last several years, but they've never made it to the floor.
Supporters are encouraged that this legislation seems to have more momentum. It's the first of its kind to go through a public hearing of the Senate's Public Health and Welfare Committee, though a vote, if any, wouldn't happen until next year. A similar bill is under consideration in the House.
Legislators who opposed previous attempts to ban smoking are now reconsidering.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Then some smart investors should be able to open up smoke-free establishments and make a killing, without the need for a ban.
Some of the more vocal opponents of the ban in Delaware were the owners of smokefree establishments, including one that was primarily a bar. The ban basically wiped out the market niche he had carved for himself.
"What's stopping this woman and others like her from establishing their very own smokeless bingo hall?"
She is weak and would rather use the force of government guns to ensure her preferences are catered too.
"...bar profits are up by 8.7 percent,..."
Now that the kool-aid drinkers have readily lapped up the "revenues are up" statements, they can just simply change the terminology from revenue to profit. It will be swallowed even quicker.
You got a breakdown that leads to the profits being up 8.7%?
There is no such thing as a "level playing field" in the hsopitality industry EXCEPT for the free market system. The example you cite is absolute proof of that. In a small town not far from me there are 2 luncheonette type places. One is totally non-smoking, the other permits smoking. Both are always busy and neither owner is in favor of any type of a smoking ban - they've got their markets and are perfectly content.
I have no doubt that smoking is not the healthiest of habits, however the nonsense about secondhand smoke being such a killer is totally bogus. SHS is nothing more than a possible annoyance to an otherwise healthy person.......people with other respiratory proplems are wise towish to avoid it, but they should also avid all other sources of not perfect air quality.
The government has absolutely no business being involved in this.
I wish you luck in NJ and hopefully the gaming industry lobby remains steadfast in their opposition.
Actually it's the city's tax revenues that are up. To cover losses from the ban many places were forced to raise prices, when prices are raised tax revenues (governemnt profit) do go up.
Which would actually lead me to believe that profits are down. If the cost of the product is 80% of the price (food) vs. the cost of the profit being 20% of the price (drinks), and if the first product is more expensive, then it makes complete sense that taxes are up, but profits down.
Of course, all that means is less money in the market to hire staff, invest, etc.
The quote is from the article excerpted in this thread, not from me. Funny how it didn't make the cut when the poster made excerpts from the article. I wish you that smoke could understand how it's the nicotine making this issue important to you, not the underlying principal, which is no more outrageous than planners telling a business the exact heighth of the counters (and making them redo it if it's off an inch) or ADA special bathrooms in dance halls, I could go on ad infinitum.
There are really important issues right now including the attempt by the few at demoralizing our troops and war effort, and the challenge facing us by Iran openly calling for the destruction of another nation.
Yes, the ultimate solution is a ban on any portable bonfires. Supposing for a minute that making miniature bonfires became a popular sport at bars and other public place, despite the OBVIOUS hazard of the smoke and possible fires.
You think government wouldn't put a stop to that fad in a New York minute? Smoking gets a pass, even though it has no real purpose, because the addicts are so vociferous.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your obvious hatred of smokers is so palpable in every one of your posts as to make them totally laughable.
Anti-smokers like you are ones that have been intentionally faulting our troops when it happens that a photo is taken of one or ususally more of them have a cigarette or cigar in their possession.
You people are disgusting and an insult to conservatism. Pushing for BIGGER and MORE INTRUSIVE government is not what conservatives are about.
If you don't like being around the evil addicts (which of course is a bogus claim anyway) talk to the owner, find a non-smoking establishment or OPEN YOUR own. You have no more right to dictate the clientele of my business than I have to dictate the clientele of yours.
You are a nasty piece of work and need to stay away from smokers and threads regarding the issue. You add nothing to the conversation but personal attacks and vitriol.
I know for a fact profits are down.
In New York City, where there's been a smoking ban since 2003, restaurant and bar profits are up by 8.7 percent, according to a joint report by the city's departments of finance, health and mental hygiene, small business services and economic development
I think "at bay" finds the smoking threads positively orgasmic. LOL What a pitiful little life he/she must lead.
I have more to do than get on line and insult a particular class of folks but obviously "at bay" doesn't have enough to keep him/her busy.
It's a puzzlement!
As for saying that profits are up because of the smoking-ban is a specious argument based on a logical fallacy (the Non-sequitor of affirming the consequent). The only way to prove that the smoking ban had a positive effect would be to have a control New York City where the ban didn't occur and measure the growth of profits in that city vs. the 8.7% that the now smokeless New York City posted. I searched but could not find any information on the Internet about New York City bar profit growth prior to the smoking ban for strictly comparative purpose. It's as if the 8.7% number being trumpeted occurred in a statistical vacuum.
And even if one did find the numbers and 8.7% was an increase over the previous years, you could not draw a direct correlation between the increase and the smoking ban; indeed, my fellow defenders of freedom on this thread have already put forth several alternative explanations that possess just as much rationality as your's.
In 2002, New York City had 9513 active liquor licenses. In 2003 New York City had 9747, a net increase of 234. New York City is also a growing city, adding approximately 100,000 people by 2004 since the 2000 census by estimates, and posted a growth rate of 9.4% from from years 1990-2000. When considering these numbers, I posit that the growth in profits would have occurred irregardless of the smoking ban, and more information is needed to ascertain whether the ban stunted profit growths for the 2003-2004 business quarters.
I have an idea. Let the smokers smoke. Charge them $.05 per cigererette for Public Smoking Tax.
If you think there is something more important than private property rights, you need to find another discussion board. And yes, I oppose all infringements on private property rights.
The road to socialism is paved with nanny staters. Why worry about brining freedom to the middle east, if we lose our freedome here?
"I know for a fact profits are down."
But, but, but revenooooos are up, so all is good. The evil business owners should be happy with higher revenooooos. Heck, who cares if expenses are up at a higher rate than the revenooooo increases! Heck, let's raise the minimum wage to make us all millionares. Think of the increase we could levy in income taxation to eliminate the national debt!
We have Fast Eddie Rendell running the show.
Anything is possible.
I wonder if he's OK with smoking in his proposed casinos?
VERY good point! This a@@hole is clueless as to how many people he will alienate (especially from casinos) with this stupid ban! He really needs to go!!
I absolutely think there are more important issues than absolute private property rights you envision. Try building a house on your private property and let me know how far you get before you're redtagged. It's probably been a hundred years since there was a county in this nation where you could, unfettered, do whatever you want with your private property.
I've never insulted anyone, nor professed hatred for any smoker. I will continue challenging addicts who catapult this issue to prominence through endless hyperbole.
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.