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.

[Hot Tabasco]

The art of demonization or:

Thanks for the link. It looks quite lengthy so will save till tomorrow. good night!

[Stu Cohen]

We smokers are not focused on the “preservation of smoking” but rather the defense of personal choice against an ever increasing government monster aided by those such as yourself who would attempt to use your government to create your own idea of a perfect society and a perfect environment defined only by yourselves.

Egads Man! Why were you when they went after all the potheads??? You sat idly by while they laucned the War on Drugs, and now they're after you. And NOW you want us to be outraged? If I had my way, it would all be legal. Don't point the finger at me. I always said prohibition was a bad thing, even things that I would never touch. You're way off on this one.

While your own personal crusade happens to be cigarettes,

My crusade? I'm against the private property smoking bans! Clear that smoke away from the screen and read it again. You're tilting at the wrong windmill there Don Quixote.

While your main concern is tobacco, which you are obviously prejudiced against since you are not a user, I now have to ask you if you are going to maintain the same righteous indignation against the evil alcohol and gasoline producers or are you going to be the first to whine about the astronomical taxes which are going to be imposed on your personal consumption of these two legal products?

I say legalize all of it. Don't tell anyone what they can or cannot consume. Prohibition is a slippery slope that will not stop at substance X, Y, or Z. Pretty soon, they'll come after your substance. Seems here that they've already started. You should have been this PO'ed long ago. As long as it was the other guys drug, everything was fine.

Now they're on the road to outlawing yours, and all of a sudden you are as pissed off as a Frenchman in a deodorant shop.

Don’t forget my friend, in the land of socialism, what goes around comes around and since I don’t drive a SUV, I’m going to laugh at you all the way home from the pump……

You'll be laughing at me? Go ahead. I don't even own a car. My vehicle gets 5 miles to the Snickers bar. *shrug*

As for your beer, I don't care, I don't drink it!

"My" beer? I don't drink. Which beer is my beer?

Like it or not Stu, you know damn well it ain't going to end with tobacco but you're too blind to admit it.......

Yes, I do know that damn well. Know how you can tell? Because I posted that very point in this very thread!!

By the way, I have just posted an excellent essay on the art of propaganda which I originally found here back in 1999. If you have a chance, read it, it is very, very enlightening.........

I hope it is more enlightening that your attempted "zingers" here, which all, by the way, missed their mark quite badly.

I'm not even 100% sure what your point was.

Man, in your case, I HOPE it's the drug talking.

[MississippiMan]

Where's the anti alcohol crowd?

Too many liberals are drunks. That's the only thing holding that one back.

MM

[Gabz]

We're on similar pages.....

[Gabz]

I could walk out in front of a bus tomorrow and my Dr would state proudly that "The cause of death was from smoking, he was thinking of having a ciggatette and not paying attention to the bus"

As seriously as I realize you made your comment because it is so true.......I can't help but comment that it is hilariously funny.

[wtc911]

One comment of yours plainly states I said something very specific. Your subsequent comment states you never made your first statement. They are both here on this thread.

Another poster indicated that you are in denial...considering your statement that smoking death stats are generated by the "body parts cartel" I think that there's maybe a little more going on with you.

You've decided to play Russian roulette and pretend that the bullets don't kill. As I said, I hope for your daughter's sake that you beat the game. Good luck and good-bye.

[eXe]

lol ya that and I need to learn how to spell cigarette :)

[Gabz]

My apologies for you misunderstanding my "you" was being made as a generality as opposed to a direct 'to you' comment.

Yes, I did refer to the "body parts cartel" because that is exactly what they are. They employ very highly paid lobbyists to spend huge quantities of money to get what they want. In the little tiny state of Delaware alone, they probably spend 10 times what the tobacco and liquor insudtries spend, combined, on lobbying. The Medical Society alone pays their lobbyist 6 times as much as the lobbyist of one of the tobacco companies, and that lobbyist also represents several of the pharmaceutical companies. I won't even bother getting into what the Lung Society or Heart Association pay their lobbyists..........just in the little tiny state of Delaware.

Having been a lobbyist for many years, I know just how much prostitution goes on. I never made a lot of money doing it because I have something many others don't - ethics.

I don't particularly care that you don't like my point of view, nor do your alleged concerns for my daughter interest me. I appreciate you saying good-bye, I trust you meant that you will not be bothering to post to me in the future.

[Gabz]

I spend enough time checking spelling mistakes on my daughter's homework----I'm sure not going to do it on FR, if I even notice it, and I usually don't, mostly because I don't want to!!!!!!!!

And with this post I am going to wish all a fond farewell and goodnight.....see you all tomorrow.

[at bay]

Sorry pal, my name ain't Stu Cohen.

[NittanyLion]

Sorry pal, my name ain't Stu Cohen.

No, it sure isn't. BTW, was there a point in that comment?

I'm still looking for evidence of statistical significance. Feel free to provide that at any time.

[at bay]

"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."

Seriously, God has told me to tell Sheila she is wasting far too much time not only smoking, but making it the cause of her life! (Just look at her website).

Also, the lack of sound reasoning displayed in the first sentence is not part of the Lord's plan for you. He gave you a noggin to use. You are obviously brighter than the lack of logical thinking the "Yes but a safe could fall on me anyway" themes you peddle. Here's hoping the tons of evidence on the dangers of smoking hit you before the safe or semi or a Ronald MacDonald statue flying off a flatbed truck.

[Madame Dufarge]

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.

How so?

I would interpret it as a shorthand expression of a philosophy toward life. This philosophy seems to be shared by a great number of folks who value individualism.

The anti-smoking crowd is more collectivist in character, always going on about "society" this and "society" that, without any apparent awareness that society is made up of individuals.

In their march to health Utopia, they routinely insult and demonize individuals who refuse to buy into their philosophy. There's also a general gloominess and elitism that punctuates their pronouncements, a common trait of Utopians.

Their inability to understand why some individuals do not share their philosophy seems to be driven by an underlying hostility to those who refuse to join their herd.

Collectivism requires control over, and subsequent expunging of, individualism.

Demonizing is, of course, the first step in this process.

[cinFLA]

It's just nuts the way the anti's say that smokers are the only ones that will die a horrible death from smoking. This is just not true! Period!

If it is not true that smokers are the only ones that will die a horrible death from smoking you are saying that others (non-smokers) will dia a horrible death from smoking. The only conclusion that will fit is the non-smokers will die a horrible death from SHS.

[cinFLA]

Now that we have established that the federal govt hasn't got any, which state/county/municiple regulations would you like to explore?

You made the claim. Show me.

[wtc911]

Boozers, junkies, gays who indulge in dangerous sex, smokers...what do they have in common? A couple of things...denial of the dangers of their habit and rationalization of their choice along the "hit by a truck tomorrow" lines.

One more thing...they too often end up costing the rest of us resources to take care of them when the bill for their choice comes.

I really don't want any ill to befall you or any of the other smokers here, why would I? But you're kidding yourselves if you pretend that you're not increasing the odds against you every time you light up. The intentional ignorance on this thread is tiresome. Good luck to all of you.

[cinFLA]

So the fact that I may want to see if the facility is clean and well managed is not a valid reason?

You missed the part where anarchists/Libertarians shall be restricted from those facilities.

[cinFLA]

Demonizing is, of course, the first step in this process.

You mean like calling anyone that diagrees with you a 'nazi'?????

[Just another Joe]

You missed the part where anarchists/Libertarians shall be restricted from those facilities.

And why would that have anything to do with me? I'm neither.

[cinFLA]

Do you concede that your post about the "decree" was inaccurate?