(Smoking) Ban puts bars in the red

The Greeley Tribune (Greeley, Colorado) ^ | 1/12/04 | Phillip Yates

[GSWarrior]

I quit smoking 6 months ago. I too am against this ban, but I'm having trouble inhaling the claim that bars and restaurants are going to suffer major loss of business. Smokers are a minority already and the ones I know have no problem of trekking out to the sidewalk for a smoke.

[Gabz]

Good for you in quitting.

Glad to hear you are against the bans.

But your trouble with the claim that establishments are going to suffer has already been proven wrong.

Bars and restaurants, especially bars, are laying off emplyees, cutting hours and going out of business left and right.

The sheeple of California may have accepted the smoking ban, but the bans are not being accepted so willingly in other areas with more unfriendly climates.

The antis are hollering from the hills that the ban is so good for business in Delaware that there have been all kinds of new liquor license applications. What they fail to mention is that the purchase of an existing establishmnet requires a new liquor license application.

Anti-smokers lie and the press allows them to get away with it.

[Just another Joe]

Besides, the Taliban is composed of smokers!

Such a putz. From that statement you wouldn't know a taliban if it bit you on the a$$.

[swarthyguy]

Nope, just your mindset, ObergruppenSmokFuhrer!

OOh, and a nitpicking wannabe grammer Nazi, too.

Health macht Frei!

[swarthyguy]

I agree with you. It's all rearguard action now. Isolated cases notwithstanding, there's no real great groundswell against all these bans.

Sort of like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.

Or the British Indian force that retreated from Kabul, 16k soldiers and sepoys reduced to one survivor.

Still sucks.

[swarthyguy]

>>I fight all day long on here against "conservatives"

The terms of the struggle have changed and the parties or traditional political labels/groupings don't reflect that.

It's more Statist/Corporatists vs What - the rest? Free thinkers, individualists.

Or the old Hamilton/Jeffersonian split redux.

[Gabz]

......there's no real great groundswell against all these bans.

You just haven't heard about them........and elected "representatives" are ignoring them as is the media .........but they are there

[swarthyguy]

More power to them. I hope they start to succeed.

Just an anecdote of what I mean; a town with a new ban had a referendum. The smokers or their allies didn't come out to vote.

The referendum to overturn the ban was defeated by less than 400 votes in a town of approximately 30,000 people.

[KOZ.]

And the gnatzies are so happy that this bartender's lungs will not be exposed to ETS while standing in the unemployment line sucking on government tits!



colorful :)

[Gabz]

I bet the opposition to the referendum to over turn that ban was heavily funded by the anti-smoker organizations. And I'm not a betting kind of gal.


And that is the major problem - no money to get the message out. The anti-smoker groups have huge war chests for advertising and press releases. The smokers don't.

We try to do what we can, but it comes out of our pockets......unlike the antis who get grants from multi-billion dollar foundations that are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

[maxwell]

1. I bought a can o' beef tripe menudo about a month ago.

2. I don't believe that the majority of folks in this country wanted Prohibition.

3. A bunch of those other nasty habits are probably illegal too. Does the fact they occur in a bar make them OK?

That doesn't even make sense. Just admit it if I've bested you, dude...

[maxwell]

WILKOMMEN.

Huh? I been fightin' this fight for a while here, dude...

Thanks anyway.

[CSM]

"Over the years they have formed habits of drinking in non smoking restaurants or at home or friends houses."

Correction, a private property owner has given himself the competitive advantage of being smoke free or they are to lazy to make the investment themselves. Smoking bans destroy non smoking bars too!

[CSM]

"Do you believe in absolute property rights? Do you think zoning is unconstitutional? If you're next door neighbor decided to turn her home into a rendering plant would you just hold your nose and shrug? I think not."

OK, I'll bite. Yes, I do believe in absolute property rights. However, the example you used shows a clear violation of another persons property. The rights of the property owner end when someone else's property rights are trampled.

So how does smoking on a persons property infringe upon someone elses property rights? The only way a gnatzie such as yourself is affected, is when you enter the establishment. Don't you enter by your own free will upon invitation? (hint: The "open" for business sign on the door is an invitation!)

[Gabz]

It's called comparing apples and oranges and is a common tactic of the anti-smoker juggernaut members.

[CSM]

Yep, a common tactic when they know they don't have any legitimate argument to use to impose their will on others.