Posted on 05/19/2002 8:12:00 AM PDT by Gabz
Members of Delaware's General Assembly last week completed the bold step of banning smoking in nearly all public buildings.
That happened in 1994 - what this legislation does is bans smoking in nearly all PRIVATE buildings.
I spent a couple hours talking with this guy the other day - he's devasted, to say the least.
There are alot of other businesses in Delaware that make their living in those same 56 days. Apparently he has found it neccessary to allow smoking in 21 of his rooms - and now that number is going to drop to 5????
I think he has a right to be concerned. And he also has good reason.
Socialism isn't creeping anymore, it's galloping.
Fight, God dammit!
...a kindred spirit.
Rehoboth Beach is generally called the Nation's Summer Capitol - I think it's going to turn into more of a wasteland and Ocean City, Maryland is going to get that moniker.
Just one more reason I can't wait to sell my house and get out of here.
Even when I smoked (30 yrs) I had the courtesey to not smoke while eating in public places.
No smoking makes going out MORE pleasurable. If you want to smoke, go outside with the rest of the pasty grey people and smoke away.
BTW, your business is NOT private. There are all kinds of laws protecting the public where people gather. You probably don't like that, but that's the way it is.
this wasn't the only article in the paper this morning - here's another one:
Challenges just beginning. Politics, public health, individual rights in smoking ban equation
Although some might question the timing of the legislation in light of looming state budget deficits, Mr. Davis said politics always plays a role as to when a particular bill comes up for a vote.
Davis is right - a lot of politics played into this one. it had originally been scheduled for reconsideration in the Senate on June 14 - but got pushed up to May 14.
A few interesting tidbits about the movement of the date: The state comptroller had been out of town for the week previous and did not have an opportunity to look at the fiscal ramifications of eliminating the exemptions for bars and the casinos. Also, this coming Monday the budget wrriting committee begins it's 2 weeks of final budget markups and on Monday the Financial Advisory council meets for the final time to finalize the current fiscal year numbers and predictions for the new fiscal year.
This would never have passed in it's current form had all the financial ramifications been laid out thoroughly. so by fast-tracking it, legislators who are indebted to the anti-smoker cartel get kudos for protecting 'the public health' and at the same time can avoid political suicide for hurting the state's bottome line.
"Delaware's setting a great example for the rest of the country."
Who the HELL do these people think they are. They are ruining the United States.
We tore down ONE wall and brought it to the United STATES!
Otto J. Mueksch
President, Californians For Smokers Rights
After obtaining data on "Taxable Sales in California" (Sales and Use Tax), I analyzed the Periods of 1989 to 1993 (Pre-smoking ban year), and 1994 to 1999 (Post smoking ban). The media, with furnished information from the anti-smoking industry, wants to tell us that everything is fine, there is NO damage to the restaurant industry. In fact they tell us that the restaurants are doing better than ever since the ban and there is no cause for alarm.
When you look at those two periods, you also have to consider the overall economic tendencies 1989 to 1993 was at the tail end of a recessionary period, with ZERO growth. The "Eating and Drinking" group contains eating places where no alcoholic beverages are sold; eating places where beer and wine is served; and eating places where all types of liquor is served. I call the first group FAST FOOD or FF, and combine the two remaining groups into RESTAURANTS AND BARS or RB.
The analysis I conducted shows the following:
Even though there was Zero growth, the FF sector showed an increase in sales of 11.7% Whereas the RB showed a modest gain of 1.2%. Another interesting feature of the report issued by the Board of Equalization is the number of permits issued in the various categories. The permits for the FF sector increased during this period by 15.7%, while the permits for the RB group declined by .9%, or 293 fewer RB.
Looking at the period from 1994 to 1999, the overall economy (taxable sales statewide) increased by an incredible 31.9%. Looking at the sales for FF and RB I found that they increased also, with FF sales outpacing the overall figure at 38.4%, while the RB sales were below the overall economy figures, at 28.6%. However, the clincher, and what the Media and the anti-smoking industry does NOT tell you, is that the number of permits issued for FF rose by 12.7%, whereas the number of permits for RB DECREASED by 3.3%, which means that there were 1,039 fewer RB’s in California. In other words, during a period in which we saw a tremendous increase in the overall economy, 1,039 restaurants or bars went out of business.
That is the real impact of the smoking ban. So if you hear of anyone saying that the smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in California.
They all took a very big hit in the wallet when the state allowed the 3 horserace tracks to start operating slot machine casinos. Well, the fire companies and the fraternal groups are exempt from this when they are holding fundraisers - but as far as I can tell - the churches aren't.
This is going to be very interesting to watch in the coming days and weeks!!!
Talk about skewing the numbers. Just because permits weren't issued doesn't mean there are "fewer RB's". Since when does "permits issued" equate to the loss of existing RB's (as you call them) . The number of "RB's" as you call them has INCREASED in my town in just the last year alone, ...and, you have to wait to get a seat....I now of NO local "RB's" or bars that have closed since the law was passed.
BTW "FF" isn't only drive-thru, they have dining area's too.
If your problem is, you can't sit through a real meal without having a cigarette, then you should look at your own shortcomings, not the government.
Maybe if smokers had shown more courtesy, rather than call it "a right" in the past, the government wouldn't have had to take the actions they have....Maybe, just maybe, selfish smokers can look at themselves as the cause of the problem...ponder that one.
We can't!
The government has us tied up fighting on too many fronts.
Face it. We are dying from a thousand little cuts.
LOL!!! But how about holding them responsible for the undercapitalization of the state????
I disagree with you. It is a private business that invites certain members of the public to enter it. No one is required to enter the premises.
There are all kinds of laws protecting the public where people gather.
I have no problem with laws protecting the public - but business owners are members of the public as well. Creating laws that not only do not protect them, but can cause major damage are wrong.
There are many people in society with allergies that when triggered can be life threatening - are we next going to ban those in "public" places??? I personally can not get in close proximity to raw shrimp - should I insist that no restaurant, bar or store have raw shrimp on the premises because one day, I may possibly decide to go there???? Of course not - that's ridiculous. But that is exactly what the anti-smokers want. they insist that ALL places they "might possibly, one day" decide to visit.
Just as I avoid contact with substances that have an adverse effect on me, everyone else can do the same. If you don't like the smoking policy of an establishment, complain to the owner/management and take your business elswhere. It's a very simple solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.