Oh yes! Remember this picture?
Posted on 02/14/2005 5:26:50 AM PST by SheLion
HALLOCK, Minn. - On Dec. 18, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the Grand Forks Tobacco Free Coalition at the Alerus Center. After listening to the panel members and researching both sides of the issues, and having lived in California when the smoking ban was instituted there, I strongly urge the Grand Forks City Council and other agencies to take no action on the issue at this time, except to research the facts on both sides.
Why? First, the health issue is seriously questionable. As the American Council on Science and Health has put it, "the role of environmental tobacco smoke in the development of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease is uncertain and controversial."
The term that comes to my mind is "comparative risk." That is, if you were to compare the risk of secondhand smoke to other risks found in homes and workplaces, you'd find little real difference, especially if those other risks were subject to the same scrutiny that secondhand smoke has endured.
Second, the economic issue is distorted, and our area cannot afford the risk that the same thing that happened in California will happen here. As someone who lived through California's non-smoking program, let me lend some insight as to its real effect.
The smoking ban in California was a failure. For one thing, it was accomplished through lies, exaggeration and bureaucratic gamesmanship. The lies included the health risks (for example, the statement that 50,000 people die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke) and false representations of health studies (check the World Health Organization and other groups on this).
The distortions included what the estimated economic impact would be on all workplaces. Minimal, the activists said. The reality proved different. The loss in productivity (from smokers having to leave the workplace to smoke) and jobs (from scores of restaurants and bars closing and other businesses moving) was substantial.
If you are not traveling, then bars and restaurants are a luxury. They're an activity on which customers choose to spend their discretionary dollars.
As the Bismarck Tribune pointed out in its editorial against smoking bans, smoking and food go together. So when restaurants force smokers out into the area's cold weather, those smokers do not go out to eat. They stay home and keep an equal number of non-smokers with them.
The result is a 40 percent to 60 percent loss in sales for bars and restaurants with bars. In California, this meant the closing of almost all non-chain restaurants and bars six months to three years after a smoking ban. And that was in a state where the weather does not deter smoking outside; you can expect a greater impact here.
In addition, many smokers are older or retired people, and pushing them outside in weather that lately has been dangerously cold probably would create higher health costs than would the status quo.
The well-financed special interests against the legal activity of smoking will coerce legislators into making a major mistake. Please let your representatives know that they should have all the facts before acting.
Troy is former economic development director of the Kittson County (Minn.) Office of Economic Development.
When you watch the lawsuits against the fastfood chains look for the name John Banzhaf.........he has gleefully stated he will use what he perfected against the tobacco companies against the fast fod industry.
It doens't matter to him that he lost his first case against fast-food.....he plans to shop around the lawsuit(s) until he finds a judge/jurisdiction sypathetic to his "cause." Just like he did with tobacco.
Since smokers make up a portion of the patrons at restaurants and perhaps an even larger percentage of the patrons at bars, it only makes sense that smoking bans will cause a drop in business. And the percentage of non-smoking patrons gained by the smoking ban I would think would be almost negligible because very few people totally avoided restaurants because of smokers.
Facts and statisitcs seem to bear this out.
And what better proof is there than the ACTUAL books of these establishments, as you suggest, LOL!
Robert Wood Johnson Foundaton. It is a "foundation" that contributes vast somes of money to it's pet projects. The main source of it's income is it's ownership of untold numbers of shares of Johnson & Johnson.
It is a total anti Constitution organization.
It is anti gun, anti alcohol (it has taken over MADD,) anti smoker, anit private property organization.
Every time you buy a J&J product, you are contributing to this anti American cause.
TCowboy is right, I'm the one that told you to calm down. And you really need to do so, or you will not last long on these type threads.
I appreciate the information. Thank you. Johnson & Johnson has come a long way since baby powder and other baby products. One might say they've lost their innocense.
I know how you meant it..............but others may not have and so I took the opportunity to put out some facts unknown to those who only listen to the MSM on this issue.
I can't say it often enough, that it never ceases to amaze me that FReepers who scream bloody murder about the bias and lack of fact checking of MSM just sit back and accept as gospel truth ANYTHING said by the MSM regarding smoking or SHS or smoking band or smoker taxes.
That is putting it mildly.
My daughter will be 7 in July, and I have never knowingly purchased a product made by J&J. Of coursre I had not purchased those products for more than 5 years previous to that. I have been gifted by others with said products, but only once................
The ire of the anti-smokers is way overblown, out of hand and has been for a long time.
Amazing.
ZT?e¬Tat the moment, yes. They're bringing in new legislation soon that will outlaw smoking in any establishment that serves food. Which would include your breakfast coffee sadly.
I'm sure that London will have it's fair share of smoke-easies, though!
Well if the United Nations says that there are not negative health implications from Second Hand Smoke it must be true.
"I quit going to church years ago, because I couldn't stand the righteous hypocrites who couldn't wait to gather in cliques after services to gossip and try to decide how they could rule the world."
Are you reading my mind and posting my thoughts? Same here, and I was a pre-seminary student my first year of college.
"So employers, by this logic. can go back to "sweat-shop" mentality? Can bosses fondle (and worse) female employees? Smack employees around? Refuse to pay them after they performed their duties? Why not? According to you they can do it ... why stop at that ... employee wants to quit, knows secrets he can use at a competitor ... kill him."
What is a "sweat-shop mentality?"
The rest of your rant makes it clear that you don't understand the balance of rights and contracts between consenting adults. Did you chose to ignore my other post?
"Government intrusion in private business can never be justified. This is why so many businesses are outsourcing----less government intrusion,less lawsuits,and less hassle!"
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! It is a sad day when business has more freedom in Communist China than they do in the US. BTW, one major solution is HR25 (FairTax), but that discussion should be left to ancient_geezer's threads.
"So how long before we see "Obese" and "Non-Obese" sections in restaurants?"
More likely you will see obese and non-obese menus, approved by the government. If you are deemed obese by the waiter/cashier your choices will be limited to the government approved food items.
As a recovering alcoholic who's being treated for major depression, I just need to say that I'm doing the best I can in keeping my life stable and with the wheels on. It's very frustrating when society tells me that's not good enough and I have to quit smoking RIGHT NOW or else I'm still not good enough, still not really part of the club.
Unfortunately, I think you may be right. Never really noticed it, but it does seem to be happening in other areas of service-oriented business ...
Isn't this what some airlines wanted to do? Charge obese people for 2 seats?
Don't they do this in bars? Refuse to serve you if you're obviously drunk?
Oh yes! Remember this picture?
Partnership for a Tobacco Free Maine are using teenagers on TV ads. Talking about how they started smoking and now they can't quit, blah blah blah. Also, one guy says that after smoking for 2-3 months, the teeth become all yellow and snaggly and the fingers stink.
Trying to make smokers sound like personal hygiene has gone down the tubes. I am highly insulted over these ads. Just because we smoke doesn't make us bag people living on the streets without a shower handy. Just makes me sick.
Now connect that with the legislation requiring nutritional information be available and in plain sight at fast food restaurants.
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.