Revenues up 9% in New York Bars

Fox News | 3-29-04 | unknown

[at bay]

Fox news reported that bar revenues are up 9% over a year ago when the smoking ban went into effect. Apparently the "If I can't have my way I'll stay home" crowd of puffers were outnumbered by "Now that the air has cleared I think I'll stop in for a drink."

Since these numbers are supported by public tax revenue records, there's n o doubt all the "chimney chicken little/ sky is falling" scenarios proved to be just whiners blowing smoke.

[CSM]

Your first paragraph is exactly what I was saying. You chose not to do the work of owning the business, yet you applaud the government control of private property to provide you with an environment you found acceptable. Instead of letting the market work, you applaud government intrusion.

Your second paragraph makes it clear that you don't have any clue about the typical neighborhood tavern. 99.999% of the customers smoke and more than likely 100% of the bartenders smoke. A smoking ban effects EVERY business, not just the ones you like to frequent. People who smoke are not a class of uneducated, poor, slobs. Smoking includes all forms of tobacco, to include cigars. All classes of people partake in tobacco use and all classes are affected by this government intrusion.

Congrats on your employment and congrats on the security it provides. However, you shouldn't dictate to a property owner how they should conduct business when you are not willing to take the risks yourself.

[wtc911]

If, knowing what we do now about the addictive and harmful nature of smoking, your grandchildren did decide to smoke, what would you say? Would you try to discourage them?

[CSM]

"Although you cite that 90% of the folks who frequent your local dive are smokers what about the other 60 odd percent of the society who do not smoke. I suspect they are out playing hockey, tennis, climbing mountains with their grand children and generally living a good, healthy, and clean lifestyle."

So why should they worry about what is going on in the neighborhood tavern. You are coming very close to proving it isn't about health, but it is about control!

Why do you care what goes on in a bar that you aren't going to enter?

[Gabz]

My comment regarding the folks that frequent the place(s) I frequent was in direct response to your referral to low education and low class comment......I refuted that based upon my experience, yet you choose to ignore that. Why?

The manager of the establishment not only plays for the local adult street hockey league, but runs it and runs the programs for the kids.......and he's a smoker.

When I was growing up in the late 60s and 70s my dad was one of the few that was always outside playing stickball or touch football with the kids on the street. He was also a coach and manager and the VP of the Little League for years. Even after my brother was finished playing LL, daddy still was involved....and played softball 3 nights a week with kids half his age.....More than 30 years later he is still going strong.....and yes, a smoker.

Both my husband and I are in our 40s and have always been physically active and now even moreso since we have a very active 5 year old.

I'm terribly sorry for your loss of your parents and I will not dispute your attribution to their smoking.

My experiences are totally different than yours, but my opinions are just as well founded as yours. I understand that you are somewhat defensive in your position based upon your personal experience. However, claiming I have some type of addiction without knowing me is totally uncalled for and very offensive.

[SheLion]

You call smokers idiots?

Someone else made the comment that 'until we give up that filthy habit.'

Makes me always think "I bet THEY have some habits that WE would call filthy!" Heh! Know what I mean? heheh!!

[wtc911]

You've received messages that call you a child abuser and a murderer? Wow.

[swarthyguy]

Stats.

Drink prices have been raised. Simple.

[Mears]

Of course I would try to discourage them,as my mother tried to discourage me.

I would discourage all sorts of behaviours,but,being an old grandmother,would probably have my pleas fall on deaf ears.

I don't drink at all,I do smoke. My grandchildrens' parents take a drink occasionally,but don't smoke.We all do our best.

[Gabz]

You claimed smoking was an addiction.....the supposedly addictive component of tobacco is nicotine, which is closely related to caffeine which is found in both coffee and chocolate..........you brought up addiction, not I.

I did say and will repeat that I think anyone who starts a habit that we know is, like cigarette smoking, both addictive and harmful is an idiot.

That's your personal opinion. Everyone has one. Not everyone agrees with everyone else.

Is smoking a healthy habit, most likely not, but neither is bungee jumping or skydiving.....but some people find pleasure in engaging in those activities.....the idea of engaging in either scares the willies out of me, but I do not call those that enjoy them idiots.

Yes, I am a parent, I have a 5 year old. Would I encourage her to start smoking? Absolutely not. Just like my parents discouraged me and my brother from smoking.......I chose to, he chose not to. There are lots of things that are for adults only, why is it that the nannyists insist that it is only smoking that should not be done around 'the children?'

All states forbid sale of tobacco to those under 18, yet most states have no punishment for anyone under 18 trying to purchase tobacco or using tobacco. Florida is a major exception - driver's licenses of those under 18 caught smoking can be and have been pulled. I think it's a good idea.

But my point remains - there are certain things that are for adults only, where do we draw the line in regard to children seeing adult activities? Must we stop driving, voting, entering into contracts, drinking alcohol????? or is smoking the only adult-only activity that children should not be exposed to????

[wtc911]

Do you claim that smoking is not addictive?

You say that you would discourage your daughter from starting. Why?

If you know that smoking will likely shorten your life and make the last few years of it hard to watch for those who love you and whom you love, like your daughter, why would you continue?

[Gabz]

I disagree with you.

It has been my (and numerous others here and elsewhere)personal experience that those supporting an anti-smoker agenda (smoker bans and increased taxes) use the terms 'addict' and 'addiction' and 'drug' in a totally perjorative conotation.

You may be the exception to that rule, but it is a well-known "talking point/soundbite" of the paid professional anti-smokers. And those of us not on any payroll are very familiar with the tactic.

There is no more accuracy in calling me an "addict" because I choose to smoke than there would be in calling me an "addict" because I choose to drink beer or coffee, or eat chocolate, or hang outon the internet.

The terms 'addict' and 'addiction' have become bastardized in the effort to demonize, demoralize and denormalize smokers.

[Just another Joe]

Retail Food Stores and Food Service Establishments: Food Security Preventive Measures Guidance
Go to "Human element -- public" section.

[NYCVirago]

If you have a problem with socialism, smoking should be the least of your concerns. Unless one is an addict, which tends to make the drug the issue of overriding importance.

Tell that to ex-smoker Mayor Bloomberg. He's the one who's made taxing and banning smoking the No. 1 issue on his agenda, even though he never even campaigned on it.

[SheLion]

If you know that smoking will likely shorten your life and make the last few years of it hard to watch for those who love you and whom you love, like your daughter, why would you continue?

Let me jump in here. All of my grandparents smoked as well as Mom and Dad. My grandparents all lived well into the high 70's and my one grandmother, who smoked 3 packs of unfiltered Camels a day, lived to be 86. Not one of them died from a smoking illness. Their hearts gave out from old age. Maybe if they didn't smoke, they would have lived to be 120. But what I am saying, there is no proof that any smoker on earth is going to die a most distastful death.

I could quit smoking today and go out and be hit by a semi truck tomorrow. My life is in the Lord's Hands, and only He holds the exact time and day of my death. Smoke or not.

[SheLion]

If you know that smoking will likely shorten your life and make the last few years of it hard to watch for those who love you and whom you love, like your daughter, why would you continue?

Let me jump in here. All of my grandparents smoked as well as Mom and Dad. My grandparents all lived well into the high 70's and my one grandmother, who smoked 3 packs of unfiltered Camels a day, lived to be 86. Not one of them died from a smoking illness. Their hearts gave out from old age. Maybe if they didn't smoke, they would have lived to be 120. But what I am saying, there is no proof that any smoker on earth is going to die a most distastful death.

I could quit smoking today and go out and be hit by a semi truck tomorrow. My life is in the Lord's Hands, and only He holds the exact time and day of my death. Smoke or not.

[wtc911]

G....You say that you "choose" to smoke and that you are not an addict. Given what is known about the health risks and the liklihood of long term diminished capacity because you smoke and in light of the fact that you have a young child whom you love and for whom you presumably want to provide the best in life which should include a long loving relationship with healthy parents, why in heaven's name do you smoke?

[SheLion]

Tell that to ex-smoker Mayor Bloomberg. He's the one who's made taxing and banning smoking the No. 1 issue on his agenda, even though he never even campaigned on it.

More On Bloomberg

[Stu Cohen]

I disagree with you.

Duly noted. Reasonable people can disagree.

It has been my (and numerous others here and elsewhere)personal experience that those supporting an anti-smoker agenda (smoker bans and increased taxes) use the terms 'addict' and 'addiction' and 'drug' in a totally perjorative conotation.

That is your opinion. The fact that you do not like the terms in no way make them inaccurate. And even if someone is using that as a pejorative, that does not make the terms inaccurate either. Tobacco is indeed a drug (actually, it is a combination of many psychoactive drugs), and those who are addicted to the drugs are addicts. This does not make them bad people. They are just tobacco addicts. Don't let facts bother you. If facts do bother you, then change that which does bother you.

You may be the exception to that rule, but it is a well-known "talking point/soundbite" of the paid professional anti-smokers. And those of us not on any payroll are very familiar with the tactic.

Well, I am not on any payroll, I just don't belong to the politically correct camp. If something is a drug, I call it a drug. If it is addictive, I call it addictive. If someone is addicted to the substance in question, I call them an addict. I don't make any moral judgements. Some of the great thinkers and leaders of our time have been drug addicts. It doesn't matter any more to me than someone being a pet owner. It's not evil. It's not a character flaw. As long as you don't hurt anyone else, being an addict means nothing more than requiring a drug to be content. Some people eat to be content, some people gamble, some people use drugs. To each his/her own.

There is no more accuracy in calling me an "addict" because I choose to smoke than there would be in calling me an "addict" because I choose to drink beer or coffee, or eat chocolate, or hang outon the internet.

It all depends. If you can smoke or not smoke at will, then you are a "recreational drug user" and not an "addict" at all. Same goes for beer. There are recreational drinkers, and alcoholics (which has the most life-threatening of all withdrawal symptoms). Caffeine is a stimulant, if you yell and scream at people and have headaches when you cease drinking it, you are an addict. If you take it or leave it, you enjoy it recreationally. Same with the internet, or gambling, or sex, or whatever.

The mere usage of something doesn't make one an addict. It is the ability to use or not use without distress that determines that.

The terms 'addict' and 'addiction' have become bastardized in the effort to demonize, demoralize and denormalize smokers.

It only demonizes those that feel that the terms are innately bad. If someone called me an addict, and I was, I personally would not care. Because I don't consider it a bad thing in and of itself. You can only be demoralized by that which you, yourself, find repugnant. It is your own negative connotation of those words which you allow people to demonize and demoralize you to yourself. There are millions of successful and productive drug addicts. The shame you feel is your own, because you attach a meaning to those words which is very negative. You shouldn't.

And if you truly think that "addiction" is a horrible thing, then you can change it. If you want to. I don't think you should just because of the words, though.

Smoke, drink, do what makes you happy. If it doesn't interfere with your life or others, who cares?

[wtc911]

Your "I could be hit by a truck tomorrow" argument for smoking may be the most sophomoric excuse I've seen in a long time. If you are in junior high school I apologize. If you are grown, well....

[SheLion]

G....You say that you "choose" to smoke and that you are not an addict. Given what is known about the health risks and the liklihood of long term diminished capacity because you smoke and in light of the fact that you have a young child whom you love and for whom you presumably want to provide the best in life which should include a long loving relationship with healthy parents, why in heaven's name do you smoke?

Because it sure beats having our children see us laying around passed out from being drunk every night.

Why do we smoke? It's a legal commodity. If you don't want people to smoke, why don't you work on having it banned?