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.

[VRWC_minion]

they were both specifically designed to insult,

However in the discussion about smoking in public, an addict will rationalize his actions as well as rationalize the consequence (i.e. we are all going to die anyways; I'm not addicted, I just have a habit I like; etc. ). Addicts often use irrational thinking, so therefore its is relevant.

[Gabz]

Your thesis on my comments is duly noted......I still disagree with you, but we are reasonable people and can agree to disagree.

You keep referring to tobacco addicts and tobacco being a drug, it isn't. The 'drug' is nicotine not tobacco. Yes there is nicotine in tobacco, as there is in every other member of the nightshade family including tomatoes, potatoes, and eggplants. I personally consume a heck of a lot more of those crops than I do of tobacco.

Facts have never bothered me, the abuse and misuse of them is what bothers me. You, yourself state that someone that is able to take or leave something is not an addict, yet you lump all smokers into the category of "tobacco addicts." I have a problem with that categorization.

You may not be on any payroll, but I must disagree with you claiming to be in the politically incorrect camp. I am in the politically incorrect camp. You may personally oppose government forced smoking bans in principle, but becuase you prefer smoke-free atmospheres you've probably done little or nothing to keep them from happening. That puts you squarely in the camp of the politically correct. sorry - but that is how I see it.

I do agree with you when it comes to doing with one's life as one sees fit. Why do the anti-smokers not understand this simple premise? If you don't like the smoking policy of your favorite establishment, talk to the owner not the government. Why does it seem to me that it is only smokers that see it this way?

[Final Authority]

Let's see where we agree or differ, OK? I say smoking is generally bad, for oneself and children, do you agree? I say that at least 60% of the population believe that smoking is a nasty, dirty habit, ie, an addiction, do you agree? I believe and it is supported by literature written as a result of demographic studies, that say that smokers generally reside in a lower class than do non-smokers, although for the sake of this argument I will allow that there are exceptions but the generality still is understood to be factual, would you agree with this?
I say that the life expectancy for smokers is several years to twenty years less for smokers compared to nonsmokers, is this a fact you can agree on? Based on this, that is, that smoking is a factor to the health of an individual and that the government is known to and is required to regulate health in the workplace and to regulate the health of consumers then it would be an act of nonfeasance for a governmental body to disregard the health of nonsmokers, do you agree?

On this we may disagree but I suspect on many issues we agree.

To directly answer the comment I offered of smokers generally being of lower class and lower education, demographics and public health studies have reported this for years. I did not make it up.

[Mears]

hoo sez smokerz arnt edjukayted/gotta go-somewun is bangin on mye trayler door.

[microgood]

However in the discussion about smoking in public, an addict will rationalize his actions as well as rationalize the consequence (i.e. we are all going to die anyways; I'm not addicted, I just have a habit I like; etc. ). Addicts often use irrational thinking, so therefore its is relevant.

In discussing whether a private business has the right to allow smoking in his establishment versus having government forbidding it at the point of a gun is more about freedom versus tyranny, not about addiction versus non-addiction.

But I must be clouded by my addiction to think that way. Now I get it. Since I am an addict, any argument I may espouse is automatically rejected since I am an addict. A nice circular argument.

[Gabz]

I never said you claimed that non-smokers don't die.

I was referring to your insinuation that ALL smokers WILL die from long-term debilitating diseases, and by insinuation non-smokers will not.

[Gabz]

You did that a whole heck of a lot better than I could!!!!

Thank you.

[Gabz]

Here we go...

I say smoking is generally bad, for oneself and children, do you agree?

This is not a yes/no question. I will not fall for the trap.

I say that at least 60% of the population believe that smoking is a nasty, dirty habit, ie, an addiction, do you agree?

This is not a yes/no question. I will not fall for the trap.

I believe and it is supported by literature written as a result of demographic studies, that say that smokers generally reside in a lower class than do non-smokers, although for the sake of this argument I will allow that there are exceptions but the generality still is understood to be factual, would you agree with this?

This is not a yes/no question. I will not fall for the trap.

I say that the life expectancy for smokers is several years to twenty years less for smokers compared to nonsmokers, is this a fact you can agree on?

This is not a yes/no question. I will not fall for the trap.

Based on this, that is, that smoking is a factor to the health of an individual and that the government is known to and is required to regulate health in the workplace and to regulate the health of consumers then it would be an act of nonfeasance for a governmental body to disregard the health of nonsmokers, do you agree?

This is not a yes/no question. I will not fall for the trap.

To directly answer the comment I offered of smokers generally being of lower class and lower education, demographics and public health studies have reported this for years. I did not make it up.

It matters not to me whether you made them up or not....the demographics of the type of establishments I frequent, and have been for 20 years, remains the same...highly educated, high income professionals, many, if not the majority, of whom are smokers.

Take your choice, 20 years of first hand personal experience, or "studies" that have been done by special interest groups seeking a particular result.

[Mears]

Don't you love it,Gabz.

Here I am,stuck in a ghetto where the median home price is $650,000.00.

Oh the horror of it all,a smoker in the neighborhood.

[Final Authority]

I must say that the Socratic method of coming to an understanding generally works every time. So it seems here. My understanding is that you exhibit some denial with respect to your smoking habit. I offer my sincere condolences.

[Gabz]

Very good, my FRiend, very good!

[VRWC_minion]

I am an addict, any argument I may espouse is automatically rejected since I am an addict.

No. But addiction does cloud ones rational thinking, so it must be considered as a potential factor.

[Gabz]

EEK - you evil person, pulling down the property values......you smoker, you......

[Stu Cohen]

You keep referring to tobacco addicts and tobacco being a drug, it isn't. The 'drug' is nicotine not tobacco.

Well, to accept your premise, you would have to accept that Opium is not a drug. Like Tobacco, Opium is merely a plant made up of several psychoactive drugs, the most potent being Morphine, Thebaine, Codeine. So, while in theory Asian (where it is most common) chewers and smokers are addicted to Morphine & Codeine, Opium is indeed considered "a drug".

Tobacco itself contains compounds which act on the Mu receptors (the same receptors that Morphone acts upon) as well as acting as a central nervous system stimulant, analgous almost to low doses of Amphetamine. Therefore, Tobacco would actually be considered a "polydrug", since it acts on more than one type of neural receptor, rather than one like most drugs. This also explains why Tobacco is so hard to quit after prolonged use, because the tobacco user is actually withdrawing from several neural agonists, instead of single agonists like Alcohol or Cocaine.

Clinicians often acknowledge Tobacco as being the hardest drug to kick, with the highest relapse rate. It is one of the most addictive substances known to man.

Yes there is nicotine in tobacco, as there is in every other member of the nightshade family including tomatoes, potatoes, and eggplants. I personally consume a heck of a lot more of those crops than I do of tobacco.

True, and there are trace amounts of Morphine and Codeine in poppy seeds, and chocalate is itself a minor serotonin agonist (such as Prozac and Ecstacy). Luckily, addiction is very dose-dependant or we'd all be duly whacked for most of the day ;-)

Facts have never bothered me, the abuse and misuse of them is what bothers me. You, yourself state that someone that is able to take or leave something is not an addict, yet you lump all smokers into the category of "tobacco addicts." I have a problem with that categorization.

I don't mean to do that. I don't know who is, and is not addicted. Sometimes I refer to certain behavior of tobacco "addicts" because they are the core of the smoking industry. I do realize that there are many recreational non-habituated users though. Whether they are recreational users, or addicts however - I don't really have a moral qualm with either one. I don't consider one worse than the other.

You may not be on any payroll, but I must disagree with you claiming to be in the politically incorrect camp. I am in the politically incorrect camp. You may personally oppose government forced smoking bans in principle, but becuase you prefer smoke-free atmospheres you've probably done little or nothing to keep them from happening. That puts you squarely in the camp of the politically correct. sorry - but that is how I see it.

Well, it is a fact of life that you cannot fight every battle. I guess I am more perturbed with the War on Some Drugs, Rampant unchecked illegal immigration, the abolishion of the 2nd and 4th ammendments, out of control taxes, and larger infringements of the consitution than wringing my hands over exactly where someone can administer a drug. Maybe once those things get squared away, i'll be more motivated to fight for the rights of "smokers".

It's hard to get worked up about the little things when the big things have already happened and nobody is doing anything to remedy them. Our great president just proposed amnesty for crying out loud. Smoking is way down on the list of government outrages.

I do agree with you when it comes to doing with one's life as one sees fit. Why do the anti-smokers not understand this simple premise? If you don't like the smoking policy of your favorite establishment, talk to the owner not the government. Why does it seem to me that it is only smokers that see it this way?

It's a natural outgrowth of the War on (Some) Drugs. when they came for the crackheads, I said nothing because I wasn't a crackhead. When they came for the potheads, I said nothing because I wasn't a pothead. When they came for the Tobaccoheads, nobody came for me .... you get the idea.

Government got a taste of telling people what they could and couldn't consume, and they got public support and billions of dollars for doing so. Exactly what made you think they would stop there?

[Stu Cohen]

Case in point:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1108251/posts?page=1

Kind of puts that whole "I can't smoke in bars" thing in perspective. At least they aren't yanking you out of your kid's school .... yet.

[Gabz]

I must admit - I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

I do appreciate the fact you refer to my smoking as a habit, rather than the typical anti-smoker preferred term of addiction.

I have no idea why you offer me your condolences.......I engage in a habit I find pleasurable, even knowing the possible health risks the habit entails. I'm not in denial about anything. Reading a book out in the sun is also a risky habit....but guess what? I do it anyway....the pleasure outweighs the risks as far as I'm concerned.

There are lots of things that lots of people do that pose risks to their health, either in the immediate or long term. Why is it that so many people just want to focus on smoking?????

[Stu Cohen]

Ooops, sorry. Linked.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1108251/posts?page=1

[Stu Cohen]

I do appreciate the fact you refer to my smoking as a habit, rather than the typical anti-smoker preferred term of addiction.

Clinically, what is the difference?

[SheLion]

~sigh................

[SheLion]

Are you now agreeing that non-smokers also die horrible deaths from smoking? Do you mean from SHS? I never thought I would see you say that!

I didn't say no such thing. Are you drinking? By any chance?!