Smoking ban won't hurt bars, restaurtants

Free America wrote:

<quoted text>Cowardly, what a naive little girl do think if you repeat it enough it will become true. You naive little winers thought that we would roll over and play dead and would spend our money where we aren't catered to. Wrong!!!! And now you try to shift the blame. We warned that this would happen after the ban. We fulfilled our end. The lieing rANTI's didn't hold up their end of the log.

Temper, temper. You're the whiners here. You had it your own way for too long and now you're spoiled.

Yes, that phrase "catered to" says a lot.

Recently the anti's began touting a study conducted by Tobacco Control. It is a meta-analysis,(the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate,) studying studies about the economic impact of bans.

They conclude only studies funded by tobacco companies show harm to business. The flip side, of course, is that only studies funded by anti-smoker organizations show bans are good for business. To put it more succinctly, the results of studies of the economic effects of bans reflect the agendas of those funding the studies. Surprise, surprise.

In closing, we offer a question to anyone supporting bans. The bar and restaurant business is fiercely competitive, and the people running venues are smart enough to do everything they can to increase their bottom line. If banning smoking really were good for their business, wouldn't they have discovered it by now, and wouldn't that make laws mandating bans unnecessary?
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Temper, temper. You're the whiners here. You had it your own way for too long and now you're spoiled.

Sure.... we're spoiled by the freedoms our young men and women fight for. The freedom for indiviual liberties. Why don't you just move to Iraq since you thumb your nose at our individual freedoms. You're no more an American than the rocks that roll around the inside of your empty head. You must be Cindy Sheehans' sister. She's another commie.

I love my rights. Most especially, I love the right (and in fact responsibility) to participate in my government. Like for instance, influencing the passing of new laws.

See, some people think everything they want should be given to them and that's somehow what freedom is. I think if you don't participate in government, you're just a dead weight and you deserve what you get.

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
No, we just didn't take into account what cowardly addicts smokers can be, running and hiding because someone doesn't like their little white god.

Get up off that corn cob you've been sitting on, and get a life........Go out to one of those bars you claim to want to go to so much and spend YOUR money... Have some fun. Maybe, you might get an attitude adjustment and be more like a person that someone would actually like to be around.. I doubt it though.

AnnaLynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Temper, temper. You're the whiners here. You had it your own way for too long and now you're spoiled.

And we are taking our "spoiled" selves elsewhere. So hurry.......go and save all those businesses you ruined.....

AnnaLynn wrote:

Yes, that phrase "catered to" says a lot.

You would know now wouldn't you..... You had to have legislation get yours for you.....hahaha
Maybe it's because no one wants your kind.

AnnaLynn wrote:

I love my rights. Most especially, I love the right (and in fact responsibility) to participate in my government. Like for instance, influencing the passing of new laws.
See, some people think everything they want should be given to them and that's somehow what freedom is. I think if you don't participate in government, you're just a dead weight and you deserve what you get.

Get ready, you are in for a long fall and it's going to hurt.

Well Anna........ I have been gone for 3 days and look, you are the only anti in here who deserves a litte beating... like an errant dog.

Oh, I'm sorry,,, maybe you like being singled out for persecution.

Ask and you shall receive.

Nick Fitt wrote:

<quoted text>
My point is the ban is either here to stay or it is coming, so it is up to the business man to adapt or go out of business.

Or just like prohibition wait till you are all proven to be the overbearing fools you are.

Nick Fitt wrote:

<quoted text>
It is too bad that you were not intellegent enough to figure out how to increase your business despite the ban. Many people ARE able to do that. Please do not expect non smokers to cry in their beer just because YOU could not hack it. YOU are NOT more important than the population as a whole and as you can see all the sob stories in the world are not going to be anough to stop more bans from coming or to roll back the major ones that are now in place.
It is good that you figured out that YOU needed to close your doors. YOU obviously no longer were able to provide a product that people wanted. YOU did not want to change, but instead hoped for some miracle to save you. I got news for you, the miracles are NOT coming. YOU are a good example to other stubborn bar owners. The bans ARE coming. If you cannot hack it, GET OUT.
Health issues are far more important than your ability or lack of ability to stay in business. The handwriting has been on the wall regardiong bans for a long time now. People have had the time to adapt or get out. Those that have done neither deserve no sympathy.

So the government changes the law and you think its the bar owners fault if they lose business. I don't even know what to say to that. Your a complete anti smoking $%^king #@$hole!

Frank wrote:

<quoted text>
So the government changes the law and you think its the bar owners fault if they lose business. I don't even know what to say to that. Your a complete anti smoking $%^king #@$hole!

I believe it's called being a control addict. Funny sometimes how hard it is for some to understand our point...

Well said.

Let me first start off by saying that I am an avid non-smoker, and I really appreciate (in fact, love) fresh, clean air that is free of second-hand smoke. The recent $1.25 cigarette tax hike implemented throughout the State of New York is an excellent step in the right direction from a social, health and financial perspective; and one that should be adopted nation-wide. The general argument put forth by a smoker goes something like this,“Cigarette smoking is my choice, and it affects only me, and therefore, I should not be punished for my decision to smoke”. If this statement were entirely correct, then I would not mind other people smoking. However, when a certain portion of society smokes regularly, it negatively affects us all (including the innocent non-smoker) in two ways:

First of all, there is no doubt that many smokers suffer from debilitating and sometimes severe physical ailments, ranging from lung cancer, mouth and lip cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, asthma, etc.(the list goes on). There is also no doubt that many of such smokers constitute a large portion of working class and corporate America. There is also no doubt that one of the largest (and perhaps, hidden) costs incurred by society, businesses, etc. relate to worker/employee absence due to health-related issues (whether smoking-related or not). Employers of unhealthy employees suffer financially by having to replace and train new employees at high costs, replace absent employees with temporary help, subsidize the costs of doctor visits and medicine for unhealthy employees (esp. in the case of self-insurance and increased premium costs), etc. Society (meaning, you and I) pays from its pockets since our tax dollars are partially used to fund the State’s Medicare/Medicaid Plans, which are no doubt utilized by sufferers of first-hand smoke. Therefore, the public (which includes innocent non-smokers) is left footing the bill for the actions of society’s smokers.

Secondly, there is scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is actually more dangerous than first-hand smoke. Ironic, isn’t it? Everyday, innocent non-smokers walk the streets of Manhattan and inevitably inhale (potentially) large amounts of second-hand smoke from people smoking on the streets. Arguably, a certain portion of such innocent “second-hand smokers” will develop physical ailments related to second-hand smoke. My question to you, dear smokers, is this; who will be help responsible when an innocent non-smoker develops lung cancer from constantly inhaling such second-hand smoke? Will you pay for their medical costs, their funeral, etc.?

Therefore, for a smoker to argue that he/she has a right to smoke simply because it does not negatively affect other people is simply naïve. Another issue not discussed in the recent news (based on what I have read so far) is just how the additional tax dollars will be spent. I believe that, in general, cigarette taxes should be used to fund three major programs. First and foremost, cigarette taxes should be used to compensate the innocent victims of second-hand smoke. Second, such taxes should be used to fund nicotine addiction programs targeted at the smoking population that is trying to quit. And third, such taxes should be used to fund a compliance program to ensure that non-taxed cigarette sales do not occur “underground”. It is reasonable to assume that the current (and future) increase in the sales tax of any given commodity will inevitably lead to the development of a so-called black market; i.e., one in which unregulated goods are smuggled from other countries and sold tax-free. This practice must be prevented as it will negate any of the favorable outcomes from this tax hike.

Innocent Non-Smoker wrote:

Let me first start off by saying that I am an avid non-smoker, and I really appreciate (in fact, love) fresh, clean air that is free of second-hand smoke. The recent $1.25 cigarette tax hike implemented throughout the State of New York is an excellent step in the right direction from a social, health and financial perspective; and one that should be adopted nation-wide. The general argument put forth by a smoker goes something like this,“Cigarette smoking is my choice, and it affects only me, and therefore, I should not be punished for my decision to smoke”. If this statement were entirely correct, then I would not mind other people smoking. However, when a certain portion of society smokes regularly, it negatively affects us all (including the innocent non-smoker) in two ways:
First of all, there is no doubt that many smokers suffer from debilitating and sometimes severe physical ailments, ranging from lung cancer, mouth and lip cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, asthma, etc.(the list goes on). There is also no doubt that many of such smokers constitute a large portion of working class and corporate America. There is also no doubt that one of the largest (and perhaps, hidden) costs incurred by society, businesses, etc. relate to worker/employee absence due to health-related issues (whether smoking-related or not). Employers of unhealthy employees suffer financially by having to replace and train new employees at high costs, replace absent employees with temporary help, subsidize the costs of doctor visits and medicine for unhealthy employees (esp. in the case of self-insurance and increased premium costs), etc. Society (meaning, you and I) pays from its pockets since our tax dollars are partially used to fund the State’s Medicare/Medicaid Plans, which are no doubt utilized by sufferers of first-hand smoke. Therefore, the public (which includes innocent non-smokers) is left footing the bill for the actions of society’s smokers.
Secondly, there is scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is actually more dangerous than first-hand smoke. Ironic, isn’t it? Everyday, innocent non-smokers walk the streets of Manhattan and inevitably inhale (potentially) large amounts of second-hand smoke from people smoking on the streets. Arguably, a certain portion of such innocent “second-hand smokers” will develop physical ailments related to second-hand smoke. My question to you, dear smokers, is this; who will be help responsible when an innocent non-smoker develops lung cancer from constantly inhaling such second-hand smoke? Will you pay for their medical costs, their funeral, etc.?
Therefore, for a smoker to argue that he/she has a right to smoke simply because it does not negatively affect other people is simply naïve. Another issue not discussed in the recent news (based on what I have read so far) is just how the additional tax dollars will be spent. I believe that, in general, cigarette taxes should be used to fund three major programs. First and foremost, cigarette taxes should be used to compensate the innocent victims of second-hand smoke. Second, such taxes should be used to fund nicotine addiction programs targeted at the smoking population that is trying to quit. And third, such taxes should be used to fund a compliance program to ensure that non-taxed cigarette sales do not occur “underground”. It is reasonable to assume that the current (and future) increase in the sales tax of any given commodity will inevitably lead to the development of a so-called black market; i.e., one in which unregulated goods are smuggled from other countries and sold tax-free. This practice must be prevented as it will negate any of the favorable outcomes from this tax hike.

We have a spammer well here is my response.
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TMT...

Innocent Non-Smoker wrote:

My question to you, dear smokers, is this; who will be help responsible when an innocent non-smoker develops lung cancer from constantly inhaling such second-hand smoke? Will you pay for their medical costs, their funeral, etc.?

I have been inhaling SHS all my life,, and yet here I sit... Your long winded rambling was boring. I am entitled to just as many rights as you are... Non-smoking establishments have always been a legal option.. All one ever had to do was show a little initiative. But instead, you let govt. take control over the Private Property Owners property... to include yourself....... fool..

Gimme a break.

Bans hurt bars and restaurants, even 5 star ones where the bar is completely separated from the main dining room.

Love those "foie gras" banners who eat a "fat free" chicken breast at these 5 stars and write the protest letters to the owners.

Eat your vegetables and nothing else.... you worthless antis on the soapbox ......and take the leather seats out of your Hummer while you're at it.

fun lovin life wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been inhaling SHS all my life,, and yet here I sit...

Didn't you say you suffer from a terminal illness?

fun lovin life wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been inhaling SHS all my life,, and yet here I sit... Your long winded rambling was boring. I am entitled to just as many rights as you are... Non-smoking establishments have always been a legal option.. All one ever had to do was show a little initiative. But instead, you let govt. take control over the Private Property Owners property... to include yourself....... fool..

Clearly all that SHS you've been inhaling all your life has finally begun to cloud your judgement. Sorry if you thought my article boring; I will try to make it more exciting for you next time. Do you know for a fact that SHS does not cause physical ailments? Maybe you simply have not had enough of it. Continue breathing the stuff in, and let me know what happens. Good luck!

Innocent Non-Smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Clearly all that SHS you've been inhaling all your life has finally begun to cloud your judgement. Sorry if you thought my article boring; I will try to make it more exciting for you next time. Do you know for a fact that SHS does not cause physical ailments? Maybe you simply have not had enough of it. Continue breathing the stuff in, and let me know what happens. Good luck!

He admits to having cancer. Swears smoking has nothing to do with it.

No, I don't get it either.