Smoking bans are the real threat to democracy

.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy,
visit the Junk Science Home Page.

What is Junk Science?

Special rules for this forum.

Debunkers

Demon Tobacco

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Smoking bans are the real threat to democracy
snowbird New Member	posted 07-22-2005 03:11 AM http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0507120015jul12,1,5835969.story The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke. Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power. Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," smoking bans have actually targeted many privately owned places such as bars and shops - places whose owners should be free to ban smoking or not and whose customers are free to patronize or not. Outdoor bans even harass smokers in places where others' health is obviously not the issue. The decision to smoke or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question for each individual to answer based on his own values and judgment. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives. All lifestyle decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; many are controversial and invite disapproval from others. but the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free, because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own judgment can guide him through it. Yet when it comes to smoking this freedom of choice for a minority, is being seriously limited by a majority made baselessly fearful through massive media campaigns often funded by tax dollars. The real threat we face here, no matter how strongly it is denied by the anti-smoking lobby, is the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behavior. They are in office to serve us, not vice versa. P.S. These special interest groups are using the Health issue to try to lobby politicians to pass 'no-smoking by-laws' But their true agenda is to denormalize smoking. Passing smoke-free legislation is a big step in that direction. Unfortunately the smokers and the hospitality sector are caught in the cross-fire What ever happened to the politicians in the 60's.."I would rather be right than President" At the World Conference on Smoking and Health held in New York in June of 1975, Antismoking activists were told that to achieve worldwide elimination of smoking it would first be essential to "create an atmosphere in which it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children..." www.forces.org http://cantiloper.tripod.com ------------------ <A HREF="http://www.forces.org www.smokersrightscanada.org www.antibrains.com http://roxxon0.tripod.com/home.html" TARGET=_blank>www.forces.org www.smokersrightscanada.org www.antibrains.com http://roxxon0.tripod.com/home.html</A> [This message has been edited by snowbird (edited 07-25-2005).] IP: Logged
CowPieMaster Member	posted 07-22-2005 08:17 PM quote: Originally posted by snowbird: This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power. But their true agenda is to denormalize smoking. How odd, worrying about “the cancer of unlimited government power” while exercising free speech. The problem used to be smokers not caring about the rights of others. I think I have the right to not come from work smelling like a pack of smokes. What is your basis for wanting smoking to be normal? If “doing your won thing” is really groovey; then smoking is more groovey when it is not the norm. If you do not like smoking outside in the rain, move someplace where it does not rain as much. IP: Logged
Fred Wollam Member	posted 07-23-2005 01:02 AM Can't believe we've landed on the same page, CPM. We just spent a bunch of time in Georgia, where the restaurants have been liberated (carefully chosen word) by recent edict. The New South. I quit 3 years ago February, and every day shudder a bit more about what a boor I used to be. I'd rather dine next to someone who'd hike up a leg and launch an air biscuit at the table than I would sit next to the old me. IP: Logged
billholt Member	posted 07-23-2005 05:20 PM Originally posted by Fred Wollam: quote: Can't believe we've landed on the same page, CPM. We just spent a bunch of time in Georgia, where the restaurants have been liberated (carefully chosen word) by recent edict. The New South. I quit 3 years ago February, and every day shudder a bit more about what a boor I used to be. I'd rather dine next to someone who'd hike up a leg and launch an air biscuit at the table than I would sit next to the old me. I guess it's just as surprising that I'm not in too different a position overall. Perhaps we differ a bit on the bigger issue, my position being that non-smokers should be clearly alerted of those facilities where smoking is allowed, much as people are alerted to the probability of being offended by the content of R-rated movies. It's a matter of individual choice about with whom you may associate, and under what conditions. Which brings me to your problem, Fred, and the point where we fully agree - your boorish behavior. It's not that you were a smoker. The issue was your bad manners. Smoking in close proximity to people who are trying to eat is low-class, as much then as it is now, and has been recognized as boorish behavior since the days when "Do you mind if I smoke?" evolved from the rhetorical. Hopefully, you've grown since then. I think the problem in Georgia is similar to the problem in Florida: Too many yankee immigrants followed, naturally, by a serious degradation of gentle manners. FYI, my estimate is that: PR( you are wrong \| agreement with Cowpies ) > 0.8. [This message has been edited by billholt (edited 07-23-2005).] IP: Logged
Fred Wollam Member	posted 07-23-2005 06:37 PM I agree with you, and at a more cerebral and less visceral level I do resent the government intrusion. Knowing that kind of thing does absolutely nothing for me whenever I come into contact with cigarette smoke, however, whether it be side-stream, second-hand, or even on the rare occasion when I've lit one up myself. Unlike a lot (most?) ex-smokers, I refuse to proseletize those around me, since I resented it so much when I did smoke. I still sit outside with the smokers at the coffee shops, but if the smoke is blowing my way, I leave in a hurry. 3-1/2 years now, and the physical revulsion just gets worse by the day. I'm pretty sure it's an ex- as opposed to a non-smoker thing. I used to object because it made my clothes and the drapery smell. Now it's more like escaping an ammonia spill. As for the rudeness thing... I assume you were around back in the days before Smoking, or non-?. Restaurant smokers, especially teenagers, were a big, dumb majority (or so it seemed), myself included, unaware that those present who weren't smoking might have a much different take on smoking than we did. Other than to sense when it was politic to blow smoke toward the ceiling while others at the table were still eating, it never occurred to us that manners even played a part. It was more a case of adolescent somnambulant wheninRomism. Alas, Billy Earl, we didn't have the social advantage of having been fetched up in the genteel South, where propriety is and always has been so obvious. Oh, and as for the the CowSpatter thing, I shuddered the instant I hit the Submit Reply button... there have been a few times, though, when I've come oh, soclose to agreeing with him on this or that issue, and almost replied the way I did this time to reveal the fact, only to stop short when it would dawn on me that I actually had no fixed idea what he'd just said. As you might imagine, those are Old Overholt moments, with the dream of a cigarette alongside. IP: Logged
SamTheCat Member	posted 07-24-2005 02:45 AM Smoking and non-smoking sections were designed to protect exquisite sensibilities. Depriving an entire segment of the population of any place whatsoever within "public life" in the interests of one's own exquisiteness goes far too far. The idea that being in the presense of smoke and food simultaneously is somehow Awful is quite a new one, and I come to think a carefully conditioned fashion. Not long ago (at least in the OLD south) it was similarly au courant to think that being in the presense of food and black people simultaneously was also Awful. (Really takes away your appetite, doesn't it, Archie.) Oddly, on the television set above me right now, Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell are smoking at a dinner table with several non-smokers who notably aren't woopsing. I suppose it's one thing to be a slave of olfactory fashion, but quite another to feel absolutely righteous about it [This message has been edited by SamTheCat (edited 07-24-2005).] IP: Logged
Greg F Member	posted 07-24-2005 02:41 PM quote: Originally posted by SamTheCat: [B]Smoking and non-smoking sections were designed to protect exquisite sensibilities. Depriving an entire segment of the population of any place whatsoever within "public life" in the interests of one's own exquisiteness goes far too far. IP: Logged
KGB Moderator	posted 07-24-2005 08:24 PM I find tobacco smoke sufficiently unpleasant that I am in favor of banning smoking in enclosed public places, such as courtrooms, which I rarely visit unless I have no choice. However, there is enough competition in the restaurant business that I am content to leave it to the market to provide an adequate number of smoke-free eating venues. While I deeply resent people smoking in my presence, I don't believe I am justified in seeking to ban smoking even when I am not present. IP: Logged
SamTheCat Member	posted 07-24-2005 10:19 PM I trust you're also making a (correct) distinction between truly "public" (owned and paid for by the taxpayers) places and private (owned and paid for by the owner) places that are open to the public. And, without objecting to your general premise, I'd also point out that people who smoke are also taxpayers (and how!) and members of the "public." So with that in mind, I see no reasonable reason not to provide them with a comfortable indoor smoking lounge somewhere w/i the court house, and a comfortable smoking car on a (taxpayer subsidized) Amtrak train. IP: Logged
KGB Moderator	posted 07-25-2005 12:35 AM quote: Originally posted by SamTheCat: I trust you're also making a (correct) distinction between truly "public" (owned and paid for by the taxpayers) places and private (owned and paid for by the owner) places that are open to the public. Of course. IP: Logged
Sprengtporten Member	posted 07-25-2005 04:27 PM quote: What is your basis for wanting smoking to be normal? That very simple principle that you don't have to explain to the illuminati why you want this or that to be normal. Want eating unhealthy food being normal ? Go ahead. None of my business. Or you want drinking alcohol being normal ? Couldn't care less.* Finally, want smoking being normal ? Fine. There's nothing wrong with that you want to smoke, and whether smoking is normal or not is irrelevant; many quit but if you want to continue it's your will and that's final. * = if it's moonshine you need to take me to the distillery gang or I will call the cops. You'd better have me in the tent or I will pee into it. That the market can provide smokefree restarurants is the solution. [This message has been edited by Sprengtporten (edited 07-25-2005).] IP: Logged
billholt Member	posted 07-25-2005 07:45 PM Fred, "Genteel." Yeah, good word for the situation, with emphasis on the ritual. I only experienced the later years of those who lived the last of the primary experience - my Grandfather had known veterans of the War of Northern Aggression, which my Grandmother's parents had referred to as "The Unpleasantness." But my understanding is that under the old system, questions of calibre were often enforced with devices of caliber. I have no real data, but suspect that there were many, many more discharges of firearms in the Old South that were meant to answer questions of manners than to address issues of race. Don't be concerned about the Cowmess thing. I've finally figured out a way to describe his thinking. It's like a roulette wheel with the thoughts being, in quick succession, odd even odd even red black red black, and the apparent challenge being to guess where the ball is going to stop. Watch the wheel in motion and you see items where you agree, disagree, agree, disagree, and those where you're merely confused because you see the optical illusion of two spaces at once. A troubling game, and not terribly interesting. The apparent challenge is the wrong one, a better choice being not to play. Purring Sam, I disagree. I feel sure that the "coolness" of smoking is the only reason that teenagers experiment with tobacco. Can you suggest one other? But we're all grown up now, and we all, I would hope, admit that the movies are rather famous for their imitation of teenage stupidities and that when they do make a valuable social commentary it's more likely by chance than by design. Some of us continue use tobacco because our levels of drug induced desire to smoke are higher than our levels of intellect-induced desire to quit. Some would say that the drug is not a factor, and to them I'd suggest "Go smoke some dried yard leaves and see if that makes you happy." To some degree the drug is pleasurable, to some degree it allows us to fend off the desire to climb a tower with a rifle, which I'd call suppression of negative pleasure. Regardless of what drives us to smoke, doing so in the company of those who are made uncomfortable by it is, unless the area is set aside for such purposes, inconsiderate by definition and bad manners. That's not to say that I'd respect the sensitivities of those who are offended by the sight of smoke, or the most trivial waft from twenty feet away - their sensitivities being elements of one modern version of the drama queen - but neither would I take the upstream position in close proximity to someone who is bothered by it. I suspect that Fred and I would happily swap positions at the patio table so that my smoke blew naturally away from him and that neither of us would be tempted to shoot the other. And I would never light up in the space of someone who does not demonstrate that the practice is acceptable to them. Mom would disapprove. general note: sorry about the delay in getting back ... pressing issues. Edit: attempted Gibberish to English conversion [This message has been edited by billholt (edited 07-25-2005).] IP: Logged
billholt Member	posted 07-25-2005 07:55 PM Originally posted by Sprengtporten: quote: That the market can provide smokefree restarurants is the solution. Bingo. And it's the only honest solution. What angers me most about the tobacco companies is that they set a standard of dishonesty which the anti-smoking brigades now feel free to exercise. I really despise liars on any side of any issue. The various dishonest "solutions" that are proposed - most specificially the various bans where the will of the currently powerful overrides the will of the individual to do that which is only his business - disgust me, in much the same way that easy accedence to random searches disgusts me. IP: Logged
CowPieMaster Member	posted 07-25-2005 08:45 PM quote: Originally posted by billholt: Fred, Don't be concerned about the Cowmess thing. ... The apparent challenge is the wrong one, a better choice being not to play. Billholt, let me suggest you do not resemble either genteel or calibre with your remark. I sorry your father did not explain the difference between talking like a man and acting like a man. If you do not want to play, then do not play. If you do not like my tone, consider yours. IP: Logged
billholt Member	posted 07-25-2005 10:33 PM Originally posted by CowPieMaster: quote: Billholt, let me suggest you do not resemble either genteel or calibre with your remark. I sorry your father did not explain the difference between talking like a man and acting like a man. If you do not want to play, then do not play. If you do not like my tone, consider yours. If you'll read a bit more carefully, Cowpies, you may note that I didn't challenge your virility but did address your infuriating inconsistency. Others have written this off to a lack of mental facilities or integrity. I've been similarly tempted, but actually doubt both explanations, and speculate that it's the result of a lack of care and perhaps some reading-writing problem. There was no issue of tone, making your response as unresponsive as we've all come to expect. In fact, if you'll read again you'll see that I made no mention of character and hinted at nothing about your intelligence away from the keyboard. IP: Logged
SamTheCat Member	posted 07-26-2005 02:26 AM Bill-- I don't think we do disagree. FTR, as I wrote that post, Grant & Russell actually happened to be on my screen in that 'forties (?) remake of "The Front Page" and were, in the scene I glanced up over at, smoking at a dinner table. My point was simply that aversion to smoke in the presense of food (or aversion to it, period) is not the Natural State of Man, but has rather become a fashion beginning in about the mid-eighties. Along the same lines, I came across a paper called something like "Why We Smoke" by that somewhat controversial social-pshychologist Ernst Dichter, written in 1947 and based on a broad survey which found that the overwhelming number of non-smokers particularly mentioned that they "enjoyed the smell" of other people's smoke. (I can probably come up with a link if pushed.) That's not the same thing as saying I believe in "inflicting" smoke on people who object. But I do object to their inflicting their preferences on entire buildings and industries, not to mention cities, states and countries. And I find their efforts to criminalize smoking in places they aren't compelled to go to and can easily avoid is beyond the mere apotheosis of self-centeredness, it's the route to dangerous and small-minded tyranny. I have NO objection to separation of smoke and state; I just want a smoking section. As for the rest: Did I start smoking because Cary Grant did? No; I started smoking because everybody did, BUT the more important factor is, I continued, beyond that first cigarette, because... I liked it. At the time, there was no compulsion to either like it or not like it. It wasn't a morally-loaded question. Or, that I recall, a socially loaded question either. IP: Logged
billholt Member	posted 07-26-2005 03:00 AM Purring Sam, As usual, you are right. IP: Logged
Sprengtporten Member	posted 07-26-2005 03:38 AM Hey ! Wait a minute ! How about us low-lifes ? We don't need no damn manners, genteel, or whatever in our pub. Into our pub you come to get s*tface drunk and if you're not loaded after midnight you're misbehavin'. And everyone smokes. You don't wanna come here. I bet you woun't. Oh jeez what a gang ... you'd better keep this lot collected ...* No problem, buddy. We promishe to stay here and not bother you in those finer placesh. IP: Logged
billholt Member	posted 07-26-2005 10:51 AM Originally posted by Sprengtporten: quote: Hey ! Wait a minute ! How about us low-lifes ? We don't need no damn manners, genteel, or whatever in our pub. Into our pub you come to get s*tface drunk and if you're not loaded after midnight you're misbehavin'. And everyone smokes. You don't wanna come here. I bet you woun't. Oh jeez what a gang ... you'd better keep this lot collected ...* No problem, buddy. We promishe to stay here and not bother you in those finer placesh. Hey, so long as you guys are still wearing those funny hats with the horns, I'd guess that the standard of behavior is just what you describe; ergo, proper manners. IP: Logged
CowPieMaster Member	posted 07-26-2005 04:47 PM quote: Originally posted by billholt: ...your infuriating inconsistency. Billholt, I think I am very consistent. It may seem to you that I am inconsistent because you and fred changed the subject to manners and the south. I posted once about government power and norms of society and was enjoying the various opinions of others on the topic. However, since you changed the subject let me disagree about your version of the South (At the risk of being infuriating inconsistent). The attribute of being gracious is what I like most about southerners. You went from discussing manners to discussing my thinking process. Sir, you are a petty gossip (I am not from the South.). Last week you asked me to change my tone and be more civil. So Billholt, do you want to discuss the topic or the character flaws of CPM? Back to “Smoking bans are the real threat to democracy.” For about 50 years I have thought that smoking cigarettes was a stupid habit. For about 50 years I have thought that telling people not to smoke was also stupid. Then 20 years ago, I started coming home from work not smelling like cigarettes. This made my wife and kids happy because they did not like me smelling like cigarettes. Maybe I was too busy to notice, I think democracy has survived. IP: Logged
billholt Member	posted 07-26-2005 10:32 PM Originally posted by CowPieMaster: quote: Billholt, I think I am very consistent. ... Of course you do. But since it's apparent that a lot of the above discussion passed over your head, I think I'll take my own advice and not play. IP: Logged
snowbird New Member	posted 07-26-2005 10:44 PM quote: Originally posted by KGB: I find tobacco smoke sufficiently unpleasant that I am in favor of banning smoking in enclosed public places, such as courtrooms, which I rarely visit unless I have no choice. However, there is enough competition in the restaurant business that I am content to leave it to the market to provide an adequate number of smoke-free eating venues. While I deeply resent people smoking in my presence, I don't believe I am justified in seeking to ban smoking even when I am not present. Government imposed smoking bans have hurt the hospitality industry everywhere they have introduced in the world. It's not shocking that the supposed "hordes" of non-smoking customers have never materialized in your city. Many people who favour government mandated smoking prohibitions within the private hospitality sector fail to understand the danger these unneeded regulations represent to everyone's personal freedoms, livelihoods and property rights in modern society. It doesn't matter whether someone chooses to believe the junk science and erroneous, fanatical claims of the professional anti-smoking lobby.The second-hand smoke "kills" myth is one of the biggest shams of the entire century. Smoking bans imposed by government decree have nothing to do with worker's or public health. They are merely a means to introduce "positive" social engineering. To supposedly help smokers quit their habits. A form of "well-intended" behaviour modification.Smoking bans also allow the government to strip the private property rights of business owners against their wills. It's a fact that if non-smoking hospitality industry establishments really were as popular as the anti-smoking lobby and politically correct politicians claim them to be... No government mandated smoking prohibitions would be required in the private hospitality industry. It is true that close to 70% of the population are not regular smokers.An obvious majority. But, by the same token... >From 50%-90% if the regular, patron-base of most adult hospitality industry venues are regular or part-time smokers. Since people for the most part are "creatures of habit"... Government imposed smoking bans ostracize and disenfranchise a huge segment of these private businesses' regular clientele. Smokers, their families and friends for the most part will not patronize the adult hospitality industry as frequently when a smoking bans is in place.A good number of these people will stay home and boycott the private hospitality sector when smoking bans are imposed.People get used to entertaining at home where they can smoke in indoor comfort.They also save a great deal of money by not paying high mark-up on alcoholic beverages, food and tips. It's not just the smokers who avoid and shun the private hospitality sector, as I said their families and friends usually will stick with them as well. Many non-smokers themselves do not care if smoking is permitted in adult hospitality venues, providing there is good ventilation in the establishment. It's a fact that most smokers drink more alcohol, stay for longer durations of time, tip higher and spend more money overall than non-smokers on average. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people. Especially when socializing. Most hospitality industry establishments operate on profit margins of 8%-30%, smoking bans will obviously have a huge negative impact upon these entertainment venues.No matter what the anti-smoking lobby claims. Since most people are slaves to routine, it is a givein that the small number of non-smokers who completely avoided or rarely patronized the hospitality industry on account of smoking being permitted will ever replace the disenfranchised smoking customers. It would take many years for this to happen, if ever. Especially in cold and wet Fall-Winter conditions. It is completely absurd to attempt to compare most restaurants with adult hospitality establishments where smoking bans are concerned. The hospitality industry is one of accommodation. Give the people what they want and they shall come. Firstly, all hospitality industry establishments are not created equally. These private businesses live or die by catering to a certain segment of the population.Many of these people just happen to be regular or part-time smokers. It takes many years to establish a loyal, regular patron base in the hospitality industry.It only takes a few months or years under a smoking ban to destroy that clientele base.Most hospitality industry businesses cannot afford to wait for a new non-smoking clientele to appear, not at the low profit margins they usually operate under. Most small hospitality establishments never recover and many of them will go bankrupt or those that survive will do so under smaller profit margins. I firmly believe that government imposed smoking bans are a terrible idea. I have no problem with businesses going smoke-free of their own choice. They key-word here is CHOICE. In fact, the anti-smoking lobby know all too well that government mandated smoking bans are very, bad for business in the private hospitality sector.If private business owners were afforded the choice of setting their own smoking or no-smoking policies, the anti-smoking cartel knows that many businesses that voluntarily chose to go smoke-free would return to allowing smoking if they had that choice. This is why they are so vehemently opposed to anything except 100%, government imposed, indoor smoking bans with no exemptions. The anti-smoking lobby will never accept sane compromises such as separate, ventilated smoking rooms or ventilation systems capable of rendering a hospitality venue 99% smoke-free, which would also make it's air quality cleaner than the "fresh" outdoor air.There is no logical reason that ventilation solutions cannot be accepted as a workable solution as opposed to total indoor smoking prohibition. Well actually there is... The anti-smoking lobby and their slobbering minions hate the smell of tobacco smoke. This is not a health issue.It never has been. As I said previously stated without the phantom health risks of second-hand smoke, the anti-smoking lobby would have no means of imposing their selfish wants upon a good portion of the private hospitality industry. Even if people foolishly believe that ETS is a serious health concern, the vast majority of those people also would be willing to accept a ventilation solution that could accommodate virtually everyone, except the rabid anti-smoking hysterics. To be fair I fully understand that many people despise or dislike the smell of tobacco smoke. I also understand that some people actually believe that second-hand smoke is a very,real health concern. The mainstream media, the anti-smoking lobby and the medical-pharmaceutical community are all guilty of perpetuating this myth as a means to help reduce over-all smoking rates. Their intentions may seem well-meaning on the surface, but the stark reality of negative smoking ban impacts, such as unemployment and business failures outweigh any positive consequences that government imposed smoking bans might spawn, such as helping smokers to quit their habits via attempted social conditioning. Government imposed smoking bans have hurt the hospitality industry everywhere they have introduced in the world. It's not shocking that the supposed "hordes" of non-smoking customers have never materialized in your city. Many people who favour government mandated smoking prohibitions within the private hospitality sector fail to understand the danger these unneeded regulations represent to everyone's personal freedoms, livelihoods and property rights in modern society. It doesn't matter whether someone chooses to believe the junk science and erroneous, fanatical claims of the professional anti-smoking lobby.The second-hand smoke "kills" myth is one of the biggest shams of the entire century. Smoking bans imposed by government decree have nothing to do with worker's or public health. They are merely a means to introduce "positive" social engineering. To supposedly help smokers quit their habits. A form of "well-intended" behaviour modification.Smoking bans also allow the government to strip the private property rights of business owners against their wills. It's a fact that if non-smoking hospitality industry establishments really were as popular as the anti-smoking lobby and politically correct politicians claim them to be... No government mandated smoking prohibitions would be required in the private hospitality industry. It is true that close to 70% of the population are not regular smokers.An obvious majority. But, by the same token... >From 50%-90% if the regular, patron-base of most adult hospitality industry venues are regular or part-time smokers. Since people for the most part are "creatures of habit"... Government imposed smoking bans ostracize and disenfranchise a huge segment of these private businesses' regular clientele. Smokers, their families and friends for the most part will not patronize the adult hospitality industry as frequently when a smoking bans is in place.A good number of these people will stay home and boycott the private hospitality sector when smoking bans are imposed.People get used to entertaining at home where they can smoke in indoor comfort.They also save a great deal of money by not paying high mark-up on alcoholic beverages, food and tips. It's not just the smokers who avoid and shun the private hospitality sector, as I said their families and friends usually will stick with them as well. Many non-smokers themselves do not care if smoking is permitted in adult hospitality venues, providing there is good ventilation in the establishment. It's a fact that most smokers drink more alcohol, stay for longer durations of time, tip higher and spend more money overall than non-smokers on average. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people. Especially when socializing. Most hospitality industry establishments operate on profit margins of 8%-30%, smoking bans will obviously have a huge negative impact upon these entertainment venues.No matter what the anti-smoking lobby claims. Since most people are slaves to routine, it is a givein that the small number of non-smokers who completely avoided or rarely patronized the hospitality industry on account of smoking being permitted will ever replace the disenfranchised smoking customers. It would take many years for this to happen, if ever. Especially in cold and wet Fall-Winter conditions. It is completely absurd to attempt to compare most restaurants with adult hospitality establishments where smoking bans are concerned. The hospitality industry is one of accommodation. Give the people what they want and they shall come. Firstly, all hospitality industry establishments are not created equally. These private businesses live or die by catering to a certain segment of the population.Many of these people just happen to be regular or part-time smokers. It takes many years to establish a loyal, regular patron base in the hospitality industry.It only takes a few months or years under a smoking ban to destroy that clientele base.Most hospitality industry businesses cannot afford to wait for a new non-smoking clientele to appear, not at the low profit margins they usually operate under. Most small hospitality establishments never recover and many of them will go bankrupt or those that survive will do so under smaller profit margins. I firmly believe that government imposed smoking bans are a terrible idea. I have no problem with businesses going smoke-free of their own choice. They key-word here is CHOICE. In fact, the anti-smoking lobby know all too well that government mandated smoking bans are very, bad for business in the private hospitality sector.If private business owners were afforded the choice of setting their own smoking or no-smoking policies, the anti-smoking cartel knows that many businesses that voluntarily chose to go smoke-free would return to allowing smoking if they had that choice. This is why they are so vehemently opposed to anything except 100%, government imposed, indoor smoking bans with no exemptions. The anti-smoking lobby will never accept sane compromises such as separate, ventilated smoking rooms or ventilation systems capable of rendering a hospitality venue 99% smoke-free, which would also make it's air quality cleaner than the "fresh" outdoor air.There is no logical reason that ventilation solutions cannot be accepted as a workable solution as opposed to total indoor smoking prohibition. Well actually there is... The anti-smoking lobby and their slobbering minions hate the smell of tobacco smoke. This is not a health issue.It never has been. As I said previously stated without the phantom health risks of second-hand smoke, the anti-smoking lobby would have no means of imposing their selfish wants upon a good portion of the private hospitality industry. Even if people foolishly believe that ETS is a serious health concern, the vast majority of those people also would be willing to accept a ventilation solution that could accommodate virtually everyone, except the rabid anti-smoking hysterics. To be fair I fully understand that many people despise or dislike the smell of tobacco smoke. I also understand that some people actually believe that second-hand smoke is a very,real health concern. The mainstream media, the anti-smoking lobby and the medical-pharmaceutical community are all guilty of perpetuating this myth as a means to help reduce over-all smoking rates. Their intentions may seem well-meaning on the surface, but the stark reality of negative smoking ban impacts, such as unemployment and business failures outweigh any positive consequences that government imposed smoking bans might spawn, such as helping smokers to quit their habits via attempted social conditioning. ------------------ www.forces.org www.smokersrightscanada.org www.antibrains.com http://roxxon0.tripod.com/home.html IP: Logged
Ryan Atwater Member	posted 07-27-2005 12:04 AM quote: So Billholt, do you want to discuss the topic or the character flaws of CPM? Don't worry, CowPattie, there isn't enough bandwidth in the universe to discuss the latter. IP: Logged
Frank Member	posted 07-27-2005 08:33 AM quote: I'd guess that the standard of behavior is just what you describe; ergo, proper manners. Shouldn't that be ergo propter hoc? But seriously, the old timers here definitely have a double standard on "proper manners." IP: Logged
billholt Member	posted 07-27-2005 11:00 AM Originally posted by Frank: quote: Shouldn't that be ergo propter hoc? Dunno. Never understood hockey. quote: But seriously, the old timers here definitely have a double standard on "proper manners." Of course we do. We are, with no more one exception, human beings. O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion: What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us, An' ev'n devotion! bb IP: Logged
Sprengtporten Member	posted 07-27-2005 01:28 PM Originally posted by Frank: quote: old timers here definitely have a double standard on "proper manners." [narrowminded]Listen. In our pub, you must be s**tface drunk by 02.00. That's the way it's been and that's the way it's goona be. Got it ?[/narrowminded] IP: Logged
snowbird New Member	posted 08-30-2005 09:36 PM And you think second-hand smoke was bad!!! http://www.antifarting.com/ ------------------ www.forces.org www.smokersrightscanada.org www.antibrains.com http://roxxon0.tripod.com/home.html IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Debunkers

Personal Safety Notice: The discussions on this site may address activities which are inherently dangerous and other activities which could be dangerous if done improperly. Many opinions may be expressed. All or none may be valid. The management of this board has no way of assuring that any of the opinions expressed are consistent with safe practices. If you choose to follow any of the "guidance" expressed on this site and, as a result, blow three of your fingers off, please let us know about it so we can laugh at your stupidity.

Copyright Restrictions: You should know the drill by now. If you post it here, then you promise that you have the right to do so and pledge to defend and hold harmless this board and the staff which manages daily operations. The staff reserves the right to edit or delete material you submit if, in its judgment, your claim is not reasonable.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy, visit the Junk Science Home Page.	What is Junk Science?
	Special rules for this forum.