The Benefits of Smoking

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And let us not forget that although anti-smokers "deem" these facilities to be "public venues", it is not the public that bears 1 dollar of the loss of profit. It is the private owner/owners of the venue. The public is obviously affected as well. Every hospitality venues that closes down represents a loss in terms of property and sales tax.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Your data is useless in a vacuum. For one, you didn't post restaurant and bar liquor sales during the same time frame. All you have is an example of sales going up for some reason. You have nothing else to compare the data to so literally saying it is due to ANYTHING is lying because you can't know what caused that surge. Your correlation remains loose and going by the study I posted earlier, is probably wrong and had nothing to do with the bans.

All you know with your data is that liquor sales have been going up over the years. You don't know if that is due to inflation, due to population growth, due to laws, due to ANYTHING. You are being intellectually dishonest by saying it is due to the bans, especially with conflicting evidence in your presence. Again your confirmation bias is showing. You want SO badly for this to be a problem that you ignore everything that says you are wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You may be right about that!

I may not be good at statistical analysis but I am good at finding information. May I suggest that we look at the number of food and beverage facilities in Ontario (NAICS code 722) in the Statistics Canada Database. I can try to find the number of such establishments in Ontario in 2005 - then lets say 2011??? as well as how many jobs the sector employed.

We both agree that the economy tanked in 2008 in Ontario - so maybe it would be better to just look at 2004 to 2007?

What do you think?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You can do that if you want, but any increase or decrease we see could again be due to any number of factors. As I've already mentioned, these studies have been carried out and have found no economic impact on these establishments.

Smoke-Free Laws Do Not Harm Business At Restaurants and Bars

I want to bring to your attention this bit from the above article.

Key Restaurant and Business Leaders Support Smoke-Free Laws

Members of the business community, including restaurant and bar owners, are becoming increasingly supportive of smoke-free laws, recognizing that these laws can have a positive impact on public health and the health of their business.28

 The 2008 Zagat Survey: America’s Top Restaurants of 132,000 Americans noted that, “The verdict on smoking is overwhelming with 77% of diners saying they'd eat out less if smoking were permitted in local restaurants, and only 2% saying they’d dine out more.” 29 In 2009, the release of the Zagat Report remarked, “In New Orleans and Las Vegas, two of the last major cities not to have banned smoking, this is still a major issue. Recent smoking bans will offer welcome relief to health-conscious diners.” 30

 In October 2010, Nicole Griffin, Executive Director of the Connecticut Restaurant Association remarked to WestportPatch Online that the smoking ban was a big issue for restaurateurs when it was implemented in October of 2003, but that today, “[t]he smoking ban is not an issue at all for restaurants.” She continues, “When it first passed, restaurateurs were really nervous that once the ban was put into effect people wouldn’t come out to eat and drink, and that’s not what happened. Seven years later, customers are really happy to go out to bars and to eat and drink and not be in an atmosphere of smoke.”31

All of your arguments have been researched and discussed already and your concerns have not panned out how you keep claiming. People LIKE going to bars and not having to breathe in cigarette smoke. Imagine that!

 Support for New York’s law has grown even among bar and restaurant owners. James McBratney, President of the Staten Island Restaurant and Tavern Association, was quoted in the Feb. 6, 2005, issue of The New York Times saying ''I have to admit, I've seen no falloff in business in either establishment [restaurant or bar].'' According to The Times, “He went on to describe what he once considered unimaginable: Customers actually seem to like it, and so does he.” 34

 Across the country, state and local chapters of business associations like the Chamber of Commerce are endorsing smoke-free laws. Chambers of Commerce in a number of states and communities, including Kentucky, Washington, Utah, Anchorage (AK), Beaumont (TX), Philadelphia (PA) and Manchester (NH) all supported smoke-free laws. In January 2011, Kentucky Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Dave Adkisson joined state legislators and health advocacy groups to speak in favor of a statewide smoking policy. In a survey of Kentucky Chamber members, 86 percent of respondents said they favored a smoke-free policy for public buildings in Kentucky. “Smoking is not only killing us in Kentucky, it's bankrupting us,” Adkisson said at the Capitol. “Business leaders have come to the conclusion that we have got to discourage smoking in this state.” In announcing their position, Chris Williams, Vice President of the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, stated, “Over the past two months, an overwhelming number of our members have told us that they support a statewide smoking ban and believe the Chamber should publicly support it as well. What you may find interesting is the fact that 75% of our restaurant owners who are Chamber members agreed with this school of thought.” Williams said that the Chamber of Commerce supported a statewide smokefree law because, “The health of our employees is important to us as business owners” and “The economic health of the restaurant industry will not suffer from a smoking ban.”35 See www.nosmoke.org... for additional information on business leaders supporting smoke-free laws.

Even bar and restaurant owners don't care anymore. Clearly they aren't being forced to do anything like you claim if they don't care about the bans and it isn't affecting their business. I keep telling you that your opinion is the minority, these laws are only going to increase because everyone thinks they are good ideas, and they are.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Kraxysh0t

You are probably right that I am not an economist and therefore spending my time digging out economic data from StatsCan would be a waste of my time, so I won't bother.

The link you have posted shows no author (am I mistaken about that?) but does quote a number of "studies" done by clearly anti-smoking organizations. I am sorry but NoSmoke.org are not economists either!

The smoking bans have been in place for about 10 years now. The bans have gone on long enough to see a clear effect

here is an economist speaking in an economist publication:

www.forbes.com...

To be sure, it is also a possibility that any ban will lower smoking patrons’ demand for the services of bars, restaurants and gaming establishments where smoking is not permitted. Basic economic theory maintains that such lower demand could lower the profits of any bar or restaurant subject to such a ban.

Now this is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis talking'

www.stlouisfed.org...

Tavern and bar owners have been among the most vociferous opponents of 100 percent smoking bans. As a result, many ordinances include exemptions for stand-alone bars or other establishments with a high proportion of revenue from alcohol sales. In some ordinances, exemptions also exist for casinos, bowling alleys, bingo halls, fraternal organizations, etc. These political compromises arise in response to the economic pressures that drive particular businesses to be vocal in opposition to smoking-ban ordinances. Those who are most threatened by a public policy proposal tend to be more adamant in their opposition and are more likely to have their interests accommodated in final legislation. Exemptions represent something of a second-best outcome (achieved through the political process rather than through market mechanisms) for mitigating the most economically disruptive effects of a proposed public policy. The prevalence of such exemptions in existing smoking ordinances raises two important points: First, exemptions reflect underlying economic pressures that provide indirect evidence of the potential adverse effects of comprehensive smoking-ban proposals. Second, since many existing smoking ordinances have included exemptions, data from case studies cannot necessarily be extrapolated to evaluate the effects of more comprehensive or restrictive proposals in other communities.

Now they are speaking directly about the industries that are MOST affected by the bans and gives an example of how "studies" such as the ones you provide links to - can be manipulated to show no adverse effect overall without ever addressing the affect on personal business like bars and taverns.

In truth, with all the research I have done, I have yet to see an economic study purporting to show no impact of smoking bans on the economy - without exception - every single one lumped bars in with restaurants. Of course restaurants are less affected by the bans. You go to a restaurant to eat and are there for a limited time (in general). Bars are in a different category all together in that customers go there and expect to spend 2 or 3 hours or an evening.

With 10 years experience with total bans and partial bans, don't you think that the business owners themselves are in the best position to determine if a smoking ban will help or hinder their profitability?

There is no law that prevents a business owner from banning smoking. With all the economic data available and the experience we now have with smoking bans - why aren't bar owners more supportive of the bans and why have they not all voluntarily gone non-smoking.

I am sorry Krazysh0t but simple common sense tells you that when you have to concern yourself with enforcement of a ban, then the ban is not popular and is adversly affecting the business.

Tired of Control Freaks

Why smoking rocks by BM and his gang of smoking monkeys.

1) Fonzie smokes.
2) BM smokes.
3) It makes you taller.
4) Face it you can get run over by a bus tomorrow...have a fag
5) Because Phil Morris has paid me to be the new spokesperson for fags....go on you know you want to..fags

Smoking's bad mmmkay....

a reply to: blupblup

Can you name one pleasurable activity that is completely safe and has no risks at all?

mmmkay?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: blupblup

Can you name one pleasurable activity that is completely safe and has no risks at all?

mmmkay?

Tired of Control Freaks

Masturbation
Watching movies
Sitting quietly with my thoughts
Reading a book
Walking by a canal or river
Killing time online
Singing


None of those involve me inhaling carbon monoxide, Hydrogen cyanide, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Acrolein, Ammonia, nitrogen oxide and literally hundreds more toxic, cancer causing and just ridiculously harmful chemicals.


I used to smoke... my chest was much, much worse when I smoked... trust me.

Why are you trying to disprove that smoking is harmful?
It just is.... you waffling a load of old crap wont change that.

It's your body... you're an adult, smoke or don't... your choice.

But to try and say it's harmless or is GOOD for you is utterly moronic, pathetic and frankly deadly.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I already saw those two links. Your first source is from 2009 and your second source is from 2005. Newer data has been collected since then. MY source is from 2014.

With 10 years experience with total bans and partial bans, don't you think that the business owners themselves are in the best position to determine if a smoking ban will help or hinder their profitability?

I already answered this with my link by showing that bar and restaurant owners aren't seeing a decrease in profits. My link showed that bar and restaurant owners are on board with the smoking bans because they make their clientèle happier. Again, people WANT to sit in bars and restaurants and not breathe in smoke. YOU are a shrinking minority.

So if all those anti smokers now sell their V8 and buy a 1.1 4 cylinder small car, close pollution factories, stop using parfume, then they can talk.
Oh no, smoking stinks.. yeah right. Your perfume stink too, and your big SUV do too. Please prohibit big cars.
Oh, and now we are at it, stop flying. Why do you need to pollute the skies for your PLEASURE holliday ?

Its a hypocrisy. The world-improvers are just ego-trippers, they want their space not polluted by anyone, but doing it
to everybody.

In the Netherlands years ago they started with smoke free bars before it was legally forbidden. They all gone bankrupt.
Nobody came there. No demand.
Now the state has forbidden it, BUT, the selling of these products still go on, they WANT the taxes!.
And were a happy little coutry before the US bull# reached us..

In the end its all about MONEY.

The worse are the quiters.

I need a smoke now..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ok i will try to get an updated source for you

Who wrote your souce?

Tired of control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well that wasn't hard.

This is another one from a professor of economics in 2010.

object.cato.org...

He looked at it from another angle - that of non-compliance. Restaurants unaffected by smoking bans are compliant. Bars that losing from the smoking bans don't

N o n c o m p l i a n c e d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t s m o k i n g b a n s i m p o s e e c o n o m i c h a r m o n s o m e b a r s , r e s t a u r a n t s , a n d o r g a n i z a - t i o n s , w i t h c o n t i n u e d n o n c o m p l i a n c e m o s t l y i n b a r s a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s . C a s e s o f c o n t i n u e d n o n c o m p l i a n c e a p p a r - e n t l y i n d i c a t e w h e r e s m o k e r s c o n g r e g a t e a n d c o n t i n u e t o s m o k e i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e b a n . P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s u n d e r e s - t i m a t e d h a r m t o t h e d e g r e e t h a t c o n t i n u e d n o n c o m p l i a n c e i n d i c a t e s h i g h e r l o s s e s f r o m g r e a t e r e n f o r c e m e n t . P u b l i c h e a l t h a u t h o r i t i e s r a r e l y p u b l i c l y c o m p l a i n a b o u t n o n c o m - p l i a n c e , s i n c e d r a w i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s e o w n e r s i s i n c o n s i s - t e n t w i t h c l a i m s t h a t b a n s d o n o t c a u s e e c o n o m i c h a r m . P u b l i c a i r i n g o f c o n t i n u e d c i t a t i o n s m i g h t a l s o e m p o w e

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Uh... That link talks about bars that disobey the law. You know, noncompliance. Basically the article is addressing your minority. The people who are too selfish to realize that their smoke is making other people uncomfortable and say "to hell with the rules".

Whenever you implement a new law, there is ALWAYS a segment of the population that doesn't comply with it. This just goes with human behavior, but pretending like it negatively effects bar and restaurant sales like this article is trying to suggest is dishonest at best.

This article is equivalent to saying that because some people don't listen to laws against stealing, then we shouldn't have no stealing laws on the books. It's stupid.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

new laws???? smoking bans are old news.

All smoking bans force the duties of compliance on the BAR OWNER. If the bar owner is not complying, then its because it is affecting his bottom line.

I think new orleans smoking ban will be a real eye-opener.

I am sorry Krazysh0t, the logic is incontrovertible. If bars wanted to be non-smoking, they would be! If the government has to pass laws and provide enforcement, its because the public and the owner don't want the ban.

Passing smoking bans on privately owned property is simply using governement powers to usurp the property for YOUR own use.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I've already proven you wrong with two sources that say that bar and restaurant owners are increasingly not minding these laws. Some even like them because their patrons don't want to sit in cigarette smoky places. You are wrong. You've been proven wrong, but you can't let your confirmation bias go. Again, these laws aren't going away. New Orleans will join the rest of places with these laws and they will carry on just like any other place has. People adapt, that's what we do best. This is a change for the better, so you better just get used to it. It isn't going away.

Yes, there are people who don't comply, but when the percentage of people who DO comply willingly FAR eclipses the people who don't comply then it isn't an issue. You are just upset because the status quo has changed and are trying to posit it around a freedom of choice issue when in reality it is a matter of you forcing your decisions on others without their say so (which is against everything our governments were setup to do). You can't see that you AREN'T special and your personal vices and decisions shouldn't be catered to at the expense of other people's health and comfort. These laws are only good things.

a reply to: blupblup

too much masturbation can become an addiction, muscle pains in the arms, damage from the use of toys, exposure to porn, using materubation to replace healthy relationships

Sitting with just your thoughts can lead to depression and psychosis, avoidance of social interaction, obesity from sitting, cancer from sitting, joint pain.

watching movies can become another addiction and a way to avoid social interactions, can lead to inappropriate behavior mimiced from the movies, to hear anti-smokers tell it - can initiate smoking in youth

reading a books - paper cuts and infections, sitting too much causing obesity, sitting causes cancer, avoidance of social interactions and addiction

walking by canal or river - slip and fall, potential drowning.

If you are alive, whatever you are doing, there is risk in EVERYTHING.

There are risk to smoking and there are benefits, just like anything else.

We have had about 60 years of listening to the risks of smoking - why do object to 5 minutes of hearing the benefits?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You are very right here.
Its babysitting, I think we as adults can very well do this ourselfs.
As I said, they tried here with non-smoking-bars before the ban, and all failed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can provide all the links to all the studies in the world - sources developed and posted by clear anti-smoking advocates with extreme bias and believe that you have "proved" me wrong.

But you still can't answer the question - why do smoking bans need enforcement 10 years after they are implemented. Why are they still controversial, as evidenced by the New Orleans debate?

Until you can get over that incontrovertible logic - you got nothing kid.

I am not prepared to continue the duelling studies with you forever.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: VonDutch

Terrible argument. The idea is to reduce the overall net pollution. Saying that because other pollution exists and may be more harmful, we shouldn't reduce this pollution is a dumb fallacy. Yes, other pollution exists and yes it may even be worse for you, but we are dealing with THIS pollution and have a ready and easy solution to fix it. Those other sources of pollution are entirely different conversations with different solutions and proposals to fix them.