Smoking Ban Cutting NY Lottery Sales - Business UNITES

AP - Boston.com ^ | May 22 2003 | AP - Boston

[Outraged At FLA]

Albany -- New York lost more than $500,000 in lottery sales after hundreds of bars and restaurants unplugged their lottery machines to protest the statewide smoking ban in businesses, officials said Thursday.

The protest was meant to deprive the state of revenue from the Quick Draw game and publicize bar and restaurant owners' concerns that the smoking ban will hurt business, said Scott Wexler of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association.

[Outraged At FLA]

Another point being illustrated here is that the state will lose this money if people stop going to these places because they cannot smoke. If they don't go, they can't play. If that idea sinks in, the strapped for cash legislature might (let me emphasize might) start thinking it over.

[cake_crumb]

"State legislators are considering two proposals that would weaken a new state smoking ban by allowing people to light up in bars and restaurants that build stand-alone smoking rooms, or are operated by their owners"

Geeeeee, how nice of the morality police running New York State to give a theoretic possibility of a hypothetical nod to PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP sometime in the possible in the future.

[Criminal Number 18F]

watches as numbers are randomly drawn by a computer.

Well, in that case turning the machines off probably saves the patrons money, too. A computer cannot produce truly random numbers (as anyone who's played WIndows Solitaire has probably noticed).

Here in Mass. the lottery has been totally corrupt. Not to praise La Cosa Nostra, but when they ran the numbers there was more integrity in it. You might as well light money on fire and call it performance art as gamble it with a state enterprise.

It certainly was a clever protest by the bar owners, though.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[cake_crumb]

"If that idea sinks in, the strapped for cash legislature might (let me emphasize might) start thinking it over."

You forgot to emphasize "if"...

From what I know about New York, they're liable to try to raise the state sales tax even higher than it is now (not counting the local sales taxes added to that)

The really frightening thing is that these idiots never saw this coming as a consequense of their Gestapo legislation. These people seem to have been BLINDSIDED by the totally obvious!

[Captain Shady]

It is each individual's responsibility to make such decisions (to start smoking or not) for themselves, and to deal with the consequences of those choices. That's part of what freedom is all about.

Yes ,exactly

[Outraged At FLA]

"A computer cannot produce truly random numbers "

That was evident when the NYS lotto (pick 3 I believe?) picked the numbers 911 on Sept 11th 2002. Coincidence?

[Madame Dufarge]

Not to praise La Cosa Nostra, but when they ran the numbers there was more integrity in it.

Here's the money, see you next week - and no 1099.

[Madame Dufarge]

That's part of what freedom is all about.

Careful, you're going to scare a lot of people around here.

[Outraged At FLA]

Of course, freedom scares most of the world. :)

[Gabz]

You wont have to worry about any smoking bans there, thats for sure!

At least not in the part of Virginia I moved to!!!!!

The DelMarVa penninsula is generally treated as the red-headed step child of all 3 states.

[Gabz]

That's GREAT information!!!

keep up the good work!!!

[Outraged At FLA]

"At least not in the part of Virginia I moved to!!!!!"

Yeah, and considering how big the tobacco biz is there, you should be ok. :)

[Gabz]

LOL!!!

I'm not going to deal with it this year, but considering I now have 2 acres and personal use tobacco growth is one tenth acre per person - I'm going to try it next year.

It won't interfere with my vegetables!!!!

[sdk7x7]

My feeling on the smoking ban is this: While the fed gov't has the right to try to improve society and health, it doesn't necessarily have the right to interfere with private enterprise. Mandating separate smoking/non-smoking sections as many states do is one thing, but a complete smoking ban for private businesses is another. I think Mayor Bloomberg overstepped his authority here, along with the City Council. If people don't want to go to or work at a restaurant, bar, etc. where people smoke, THEN DON'T!

What's your view?
-sdk

[Doc On The Bay]

AGREE!!

Let's Make Tobacco ILLEGAL; Just Like We Made "Cannabis" Illegal!!

Let's Make ALL "Psychoctive Substances" ILLEGAL!!

Let's create a Wonderful Society which ELIMINATES ALL "PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS!!"

What a GREAT IDEA!!

Let's OUTLAW ALL "Psychoactive Substances!!"--NO Caffeine (ALL 'Cola's; Chocolate, Tea, 'Power Drinks,) No Nicotine (all Cigarettes, Cigars, Pipes, etc.) no >"OTC" "Decongestants,"--"Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine," etc.,

AND THEN, WE Will HAVE NO Viable "OnGoing" Record of our Response to our PURE, UNTAINTED, UTTERLY UNCONTAMINATED less we Somehow allow ANY "UNCLEAN" contamination of Our Current State!!

So we Must be "PURE!!"

Under Current "Circumstances," We are NOT allowed to regard ANY " LOSS OF fREQUENCY OR any lOSS OF pOLITICAL power" as a Loss of Future "Joss!"

Doc '

[Outraged At FLA]

"I think Mayor Bloomberg overstepped his authority here, along with the City Council."

I agree, but also keep in mind this is not just a NYC thing, it is a NY State thing. The NY State ban goes into effect July 24th which supercedes NYC's ban which had the separate smoking room admendment already in it.

[Doc On The Bay]

uNDERSTOOD; I could make a LOT of money Smuggling "Illegal" Cigarettes! I Cannot Believe our "Government" would be "That Stupid" to render tobacco ILLEGAL!!

Then, again, I have NEVER been Correct by Overestimating the STUPIDITY of "Government!!"

Doc

[speekinout]

But isn't making cigarettes more addictive depriving you of at least some of that freedon. Many have been unable to quit smoking even after many attempts.

You've fallen for the Liberal propaganda. Many smokers have a *habit*, not an addiction to nicotine or tar or whatever else you think the manufacturers put into cigarettes.
A lot of people don't succeed in quitting, because they think they are addicted to nicotine, when they are really addicted to smoking. Those are two really different things.

[Sicon]

This was a financial decission and they were knowingly stopping smokers from quitting.

I think its a bit of a stretch to say they were "stopping smokers from quitting". Holding them down and forcing cigarette smoke into their lungs? Yeah, THAT would be "stopping them from quitting".

In a fair world the CEO's and others that decided to addict more somkers and thus kill them would be sentenced to death for murder.

In a "fair" world, people would not be able to make others responsible for their own poor choices. Furthermore, in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of smokers live to be quite old (my grandmother smoked from the age of 13 right up until her death at 87. My father smoked from the age of 15 to his late fifties, and is now a very robust and healthy 75-year old man), so I think it would be difficult to classify making cigarettes more addictive as "murder".

But isn't making cigarettes more addictive depriving you of at least some of that freedom?

Again, you are missing the point. It is the person who CHOOSES to smoke who is responsible. I don't care if they make cigarettes as addictive as crack, the bottom line is that you have a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. It is people like you with reasoning like yours that has led to the ridiculous notion that fast food restaurants are responsible for people becoming big bloated bags of fat. No, it is those individuals' responsibility, it is their own lack of discernment and self-control that is reponsible. The same is true of tobacco. My father smoked for decades, until the guy he bought his house from died of lung cancer. My father said, "You know, if I don't quit that's going to be me." Whereupon he quit, cold turkey, never had another cigarette. THAT is personal responsibility, THAT is self-control. And THAT, my friend, is the key to freedom.

[ImphClinton]

Your father was one of the few lucky ones. My Fatehr-in-law quit smoking at age 55 and died at age 56 seven months later.

You seem to argue that your Fater is the average smoker far from it. He is very lucky to still be alive.

My main point is a person should not be forced to smoke just to get a job, not even second hand smoke, unless the sole purpose of the establishment is selling smokes. Also bars are a common place for after work parties. Employees should not have to attend parties around smokers. Yet not attending is often a good way to get fired. Does that employee really have a choice?

A Cigar Shop can and should allow smoking as long as it's main business is selling Tobacco. That is the single exception although a tobacco plant could argue for the same right. I once refused a job for R J Renolds because they allowed employees to somke. In fact the cigarettes were often provided free or very cheep. I shouldn't have to refuse a job elsewhere for that reason though.