Smoking: Who Cares More about Money than Public Health?

[8537]

Then make them illegal, rather than a cash cow for the ruling class.

After all, we know how well that has worked out for pot, cocaine and heroin, don't we?

That's the problem, Tom. Making them illegal would be about as effective as doing so for less toxic chemicals such as pot and cocaine. In other words, it would be wholly ineffective.

Of course, me doing a line of blow doesn't force you to ingest blow.

Nobody forces you to patronize an establishment that allows smoking, either. In fact, the trend prior to all these nanny-statist bans was for a lot of places voluntarily to go smoke free or have segregated areas, with decent ventilation within the establishment for smokers....

Can you point me to this long list of smoke-free bars that existed before the ban?

In other cases, states like MN mandated the segregated areas, only to later ban smoking altogether, leaving the business owners holding the bag for thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of ventilation and smoke eaters.

I can't be held accountable for stupid decisions in other states. We had no such stupidity. We simply banned smoking in restaurants, bars and in certain public places.

But I guess as long as The Man gets his pockets lined, it's all good.

Who's lining the mans pocket when a smoking ban is implemented?

 

[asterism]

Ever bar/restaurant at Mal of America went under, as did most of the places on the 494 strip in Richfield/Edina, after Minnesota started their ban.
Regardless, nobody forces anyone to patronize any establishment that allows smoking, which is a perfectly legal activity.

Actually, that's not true. I meet friends at Players in the Mall of America once a year (I hate malls). I also know the Rainforest Cafe is still open. And the 494 Strip? You have to be kidding. I frequent Joe Sensor's Sports Bar and several other longtime establishments.
I live in Minneapolis, I have a very good idea what's going on in my city and primary suburbs. Because of the weather, some places went to great lengths to accommodate their clientèle. Not so much the ones in the MOA.
Cheers

So, my question to you would be if any bars at the Mall of America or on the strip went under?

I know we had a breakfast place here in Tampa when they were fighting over this here whose owner said she would refuse to comply even if it meant closing her business. I don't know what happened in the long run. Nor do I know of any bars (I don't frequent them) that have closed down because of the ban although I have heard many a complaint about reduced revenues.

Funny thing is though, that when I look as I drive by, they seem to have cars in the parking lot.

All that being said, I am still on the side of the owners. Let them make that decision.

Immie

Smoking is still allowed in bars that don't serve food in Florida. So of the bars that closed, most were those that sold food but could not anymore. The restaurants have taken a hit here locally, including 5 that have closed. The restaurants that had thriving bars now do not, the bar sections are virtually empty.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm too busy to read this thread but can someone let me know when Immie is steamed up enough that I need to pop in and flatten all his arguments in one fell swoop?

Hehe,

You wish. Come on in a give it a try.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course, this means that EVERY person who favored indoor smoking bans now FAVORS removal of the ban in Casinos because of the money. All of them. It was ALL a ruse.

WOOOOOOOOOSH!

The point is that all the self-righteous twaddle about "public health" is far less important than making sure the loot keeps a-rolling into the coffers for the ruling class.

Of course, all of the bar and restaurant operators put out of business by their pious proltroonery can go suck a big chili dog.

Honest question. Did a lot of bars/restaurants go under because of smoking bans?

Depending on the definition of a 'lot', yes a number of places shut down especially in lower income neighborhoods where there would be a higher percentage of smokers. If the guys couldn't stop by the local 'pub' for a beer and smoke after work or just hang out there at night, they picked up a six pack or a bottle and went home to their own den or whatever. For a smoker, it is tough to just hang out and relax or have fun in places you can't smoke. It's just like people who really like to drink or who are addicted to alcohol aren't going to frequent places they can't get a beer or whatever.

The irony is that people who drink heavily are doing their bodies as much damage as tobacco does and definitely pose as much or greater risk to others, but there is rarely any call for bans on alcohol in restaurants or bowling alleys or sports stadiums or whatever.

But then a person having his one cigarette of the day will annoy a non smoker where a guy having his one beer that day generally won't annoy a non drinker. So I guess there is that.

 

[Immanuel]

Actually, that's not true. I meet friends at Players in the Mall of America once a year (I hate malls). I also know the Rainforest Cafe is still open. And the 494 Strip? You have to be kidding. I frequent Joe Sensor's Sports Bar and several other longtime establishments.
I live in Minneapolis, I have a very good idea what's going on in my city and primary suburbs. Because of the weather, some places went to great lengths to accommodate their clientèle. Not so much the ones in the MOA.
Cheers

So, my question to you would be if any bars at the Mall of America or on the strip went under?

I know we had a breakfast place here in Tampa when they were fighting over this here whose owner said she would refuse to comply even if it meant closing her business. I don't know what happened in the long run. Nor do I know of any bars (I don't frequent them) that have closed down because of the ban although I have heard many a complaint about reduced revenues.

Funny thing is though, that when I look as I drive by, they seem to have cars in the parking lot.

All that being said, I am still on the side of the owners. Let them make that decision.

Immie

Smoking is still allowed in bars that don't serve food in Florida. So of the bars that closed, most were those that sold food but could not anymore. The restaurants have taken a hit here locally, including 5 that have closed. The restaurants that had thriving bars now do not, the bar sections are virtually empty.

Really? I thought smoking was banned in all bars. I would guess that it is obvious that I do not patronize any bars here in Florida.

I am not aware of any that have closed due to the smoking ban. Although I remember there was a lot of squawking when this was being "debated" as if there was actually a debate about it.

I used to eat out a lot at places like Applebee's. It seems to me like their bars are pretty crowded.

All that being said, I am still opposed to a governmental ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. My feeling is that we should let the business owners make that decision.

Immie

 

[Oddball]

In other cases, states like MN mandated the segregated areas, only to later ban smoking altogether, leaving the business owners holding the bag for thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of ventilation and smoke eaters.

I can't be held accountable for stupid decisions in other states. We had no such stupidity. We simply banned smoking in restaurants, bars and in certain public places.

Nobody said anything about you being accountable for anything.

But I guess as long as The Man gets his pockets lined, it's all good.

Who's lining the mans pocket when a smoking ban is implemented?

You've completely missed the point....This is about the priorities of the nanny-staists and their huge blind spot for the potential externalities of their do-goodery.

First, they slap massive new taxes on tobacco, ostensibly to fun health programs for the sainted chiillldrrreeennn, then they outlaw using the product -on private property no less- upon which they seek to gain the tax windfall.

The current action of the IL legislature clearly shows where their loyalties lie: The money for them, over and above the dubious claim of "public health".

 

[asterism]

So, my question to you would be if any bars at the Mall of America or on the strip went under?

I know we had a breakfast place here in Tampa when they were fighting over this here whose owner said she would refuse to comply even if it meant closing her business. I don't know what happened in the long run. Nor do I know of any bars (I don't frequent them) that have closed down because of the ban although I have heard many a complaint about reduced revenues.

Funny thing is though, that when I look as I drive by, they seem to have cars in the parking lot.

All that being said, I am still on the side of the owners. Let them make that decision.

Immie

Really? I thought smoking was banned in all bars. I would guess that it is obvious that I do not patronize any bars here in Florida.

Just bars that serve food. It's a decent mix now of bars that allow smoking and bars that don't. BTW, the ban on smoking in restaurants was never put up for a vote nor was it a "public health" issue. It was an issue of "protect the employees." Of course if you head around back of most restaurants you'll see the employees smoking on their breaks.

I am not aware of any that have closed due to the smoking ban. Although I remember there was a lot of squawking when this was being "debated" as if there was actually a debate about it.

There used to be 5 Ryan's Steakhouses in our area, now there are none. I think there are only two left in the whole state. Whistle Junction is gone, all of them. 4 International Buffets have closed. 3 IHOPs are gone, the Perkins is gone, all but 1 Waffle House are gone. The two country clubs used to have thriving weekend service and the cigar crowd would retreat to the couch areas after dinner (they had absolutely excellent ventilation systems and zero complaints). They bucked the law claiming it didn't apply to them (because they were private clubs) and had the support of their own employees. But the anti-smoking advocates successfully got the regulators to snuff out the cigars. It turns out that the dynamic changed, and they were no longer trendy and kitschy. Being nothing special anymore, people quit coming as much which made it unprofitable.

Gotta love the regulation that decided it would be better for a waiter to be saved from second hand smoke even if it means they have to find a lower paying job and smoke outside.

I used to eat out a lot at places like Applebee's. It seems to me like their bars are pretty crowded.

Ruby Tuesday used to do as much business at the bar as they did in the restaurant, now it's empty. Outback's bar is only dinner overflow seating now where it used to be one of the places people around here watched Sunday Football. The Applebee's here is 4 months behind on its rent. Places that used to cater to non-smokers are still doing fine, like Olive Garden and Longhorn.

All that being said, I am still opposed to a governmental ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. My feeling is that we should let the business owners make that decision.

Immie

Agreed.

 

[Immanuel]

So, my question to you would be if any bars at the Mall of America or on the strip went under?

I know we had a breakfast place here in Tampa when they were fighting over this here whose owner said she would refuse to comply even if it meant closing her business. I don't know what happened in the long run. Nor do I know of any bars (I don't frequent them) that have closed down because of the ban although I have heard many a complaint about reduced revenues.

Funny thing is though, that when I look as I drive by, they seem to have cars in the parking lot.

All that being said, I am still on the side of the owners. Let them make that decision.

Immie

Just bars that serve food. It's a decent mix now of bars that allow smoking and bars that don't. BTW, the ban on smoking in restaurants was never put up for a vote nor was it a "public health" issue. It was an issue of "protect the employees." Of course if you head around back of most restaurants you'll see the employees smoking on their breaks.

There used to be 5 Ryan's Steakhouses in our area, now there are none. I think there are only two left in the whole state. Whistle Junction is gone, all of them. 4 International Buffets have closed. 3 IHOPs are gone, the Perkins is gone, all but 1 Waffle House are gone. The two country clubs used to have thriving weekend service and the cigar crowd would retreat to the couch areas after dinner (they had absolutely excellent ventilation systems and zero complaints). They bucked the law claiming it didn't apply to them (because they were private clubs) and had the support of their own employees. But the anti-smoking advocates successfully got the regulators to snuff out the cigars. It turns out that the dynamic changed, and they were no longer trendy and kitschy. Being nothing special anymore, people quit coming as much which made it unprofitable.

Gotta love the regulation that decided it would be better for a waiter to be saved from second hand smoke even if it means they have to find a lower paying job and smoke outside.

I used to eat out a lot at places like Applebee's. It seems to me like their bars are pretty crowded.

Ruby Tuesday used to do as much business at the bar as they did in the restaurant, now it's empty. Outback's bar is only dinner overflow seating now where it used to be one of the places people around here watched Sunday Football. The Applebee's here is 4 months behind on its rent. Places that used to cater to non-smokers are still doing fine, like Olive Garden and Longhorn.

All that being said, I am still opposed to a governmental ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. My feeling is that we should let the business owners make that decision.

Immie

Agreed.

1) Reason for ban: That is right, now that you mention it, I do remember that was the excuse.

2) Aren't you from the Lakeland area? As for local bars/restaurants that have closed, I do not pay a lot of attention to those details... of course, until I go to eat at Ryan's only to find out they too closed down. Of course with today's economy one pretty much figures, it was the economy that got them rather than the smoking ban.

Being unemployed for the time being, it is frustrating to see all the businesses that are gone now days.

3) Applebee's and Beef O'Brady's are the places I think about for Sunday Afternoon Football... um, what will happen to those places should the NFL Season be canceled? Damn! More competition on the unemployment line.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

If the government really cared about our health they would ban alcohol, white bread, white rice, processed sugar, any produce from any country known to utilize certain pesticides or unsanitary conditions, any meat with more than 5% fat content, french fries--essentially all deep fried foods--all saturated fat, all trans fat, all sugared drinks, all products containing caffeine, and mandate that restaurants could not serve more than 8 oz of any meat product.

If the government really cared we could have one of the healthiest and most miserable societies on Earth.

 

[RDD_1210]

WOOOOOOOOOSH!

The point is that all the self-righteous twaddle about "public health" is far less important than making sure the loot keeps a-rolling into the coffers for the ruling class.

Of course, all of the bar and restaurant operators put out of business by their pious proltroonery can go suck a big chili dog.

Honest question. Did a lot of bars/restaurants go under because of smoking bans?

Depending on the definition of a 'lot', yes a number of places shut down especially in lower income neighborhoods where there would be a higher percentage of smokers. If the guys couldn't stop by the local 'pub' for a beer and smoke after work or just hang out there at night, they picked up a six pack or a bottle and went home to their own den or whatever. For a smoker, it is tough to just hang out and relax or have fun in places you can't smoke. It's just like people who really like to drink or who are addicted to alcohol aren't going to frequent places they can't get a beer or whatever.

The irony is that people who drink heavily are doing their bodies as much damage as tobacco does and definitely pose as much or greater risk to others, but there is rarely any call for bans on alcohol in restaurants or bowling alleys or sports stadiums or whatever.

But then a person having his one cigarette of the day will annoy a non smoker where a guy having his one beer that day generally won't annoy a non drinker. So I guess there is that.

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers. The difference between alcohol and cigarette smoking is you can't get second hand drunk. Drinking only affects the users health and has no bearing on the people around him/her.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Honest question. Did a lot of bars/restaurants go under because of smoking bans?

Depending on the definition of a 'lot', yes a number of places shut down especially in lower income neighborhoods where there would be a higher percentage of smokers. If the guys couldn't stop by the local 'pub' for a beer and smoke after work or just hang out there at night, they picked up a six pack or a bottle and went home to their own den or whatever. For a smoker, it is tough to just hang out and relax or have fun in places you can't smoke. It's just like people who really like to drink or who are addicted to alcohol aren't going to frequent places they can't get a beer or whatever.

The irony is that people who drink heavily are doing their bodies as much damage as tobacco does and definitely pose as much or greater risk to others, but there is rarely any call for bans on alcohol in restaurants or bowling alleys or sports stadiums or whatever.

But then a person having his one cigarette of the day will annoy a non smoker where a guy having his one beer that day generally won't annoy a non drinker. So I guess there is that.

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers. The difference between alcohol and cigarette smoking is you can't get second hand drunk. Drinking only affects the users health and has no bearing on the people around him/her.

You've obviously never had somebody close to you with an alcohol problem. Alcohol, like drug abuse, affects more than just the abuser.

 

[Foxfyre]

Honest question. Did a lot of bars/restaurants go under because of smoking bans?

Depending on the definition of a 'lot', yes a number of places shut down especially in lower income neighborhoods where there would be a higher percentage of smokers. If the guys couldn't stop by the local 'pub' for a beer and smoke after work or just hang out there at night, they picked up a six pack or a bottle and went home to their own den or whatever. For a smoker, it is tough to just hang out and relax or have fun in places you can't smoke. It's just like people who really like to drink or who are addicted to alcohol aren't going to frequent places they can't get a beer or whatever.

The irony is that people who drink heavily are doing their bodies as much damage as tobacco does and definitely pose as much or greater risk to others, but there is rarely any call for bans on alcohol in restaurants or bowling alleys or sports stadiums or whatever.

But then a person having his one cigarette of the day will annoy a non smoker where a guy having his one beer that day generally won't annoy a non drinker. So I guess there is that.

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers. The difference between alcohol and cigarette smoking is you can't get second hand drunk. Drinking only affects the users health and has no bearing on the people around him/her.

If that were only true, but alas it is not. It is true that you don't get second-hand drunk, but with modern ventilation systems, smokeless ashtrays, etc., exposure to second hand smoke is not that big of a problem for those who wish to avoid it. But so far as I know there is no such thing as co-dependency related to somebody's else's addiction to nicotine. There is absolutely such a thing as co-dependency to somebody else's excessive drinking, drug addition, gambling problems, etc.

 

[RDD_1210]

Depending on the definition of a 'lot', yes a number of places shut down especially in lower income neighborhoods where there would be a higher percentage of smokers. If the guys couldn't stop by the local 'pub' for a beer and smoke after work or just hang out there at night, they picked up a six pack or a bottle and went home to their own den or whatever. For a smoker, it is tough to just hang out and relax or have fun in places you can't smoke. It's just like people who really like to drink or who are addicted to alcohol aren't going to frequent places they can't get a beer or whatever.

The irony is that people who drink heavily are doing their bodies as much damage as tobacco does and definitely pose as much or greater risk to others, but there is rarely any call for bans on alcohol in restaurants or bowling alleys or sports stadiums or whatever.

But then a person having his one cigarette of the day will annoy a non smoker where a guy having his one beer that day generally won't annoy a non drinker. So I guess there is that.

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers. The difference between alcohol and cigarette smoking is you can't get second hand drunk. Drinking only affects the users health and has no bearing on the people around him/her.

You've obviously never had somebody close to you with an alcohol problem. Alcohol, like drug abuse, affects more than just the abuser.

My father died because he was alcoholic so you're first assumption is way off. Now tell me what affects his or anyones drinking directly has on anyone elses health.

 

[RDD_1210]

Depending on the definition of a 'lot', yes a number of places shut down especially in lower income neighborhoods where there would be a higher percentage of smokers. If the guys couldn't stop by the local 'pub' for a beer and smoke after work or just hang out there at night, they picked up a six pack or a bottle and went home to their own den or whatever. For a smoker, it is tough to just hang out and relax or have fun in places you can't smoke. It's just like people who really like to drink or who are addicted to alcohol aren't going to frequent places they can't get a beer or whatever.

The irony is that people who drink heavily are doing their bodies as much damage as tobacco does and definitely pose as much or greater risk to others, but there is rarely any call for bans on alcohol in restaurants or bowling alleys or sports stadiums or whatever.

But then a person having his one cigarette of the day will annoy a non smoker where a guy having his one beer that day generally won't annoy a non drinker. So I guess there is that.

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers. The difference between alcohol and cigarette smoking is you can't get second hand drunk. Drinking only affects the users health and has no bearing on the people around him/her.

If that were only true, but alas it is not. It is true that you don't get second-hand drunk, but with modern ventilation systems, smokeless ashtrays, etc., exposure to second hand smoke is not that big of a problem for those who wish to avoid it. But so far as I know there is no such thing as co-dependency related to somebody's else's addiction to nicotine. There is absolutely such a thing as co-dependency to somebody else's excessive drinking, drug addition, gambling problems, etc.

Tell me what codependency has to do when it comes to complete strangers drinking at a bar. One persons drinking does not affect another. You people will twist arguments any way you can.

 

[Oddball]

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers.

Oh, bullshit...It's for the power drunk posturing politicians, who never met an aspect of society that they didn't want to micromanage.

If they really gave a shit about the non-smokers, paring back these idiotic smoking bans wouldn't even be considered.

 

[auditor0007]

Of course, this means that EVERY person who favored indoor smoking bans now FAVORS removal of the ban in Casinos because of the money. All of them. It was ALL a ruse.

WOOOOOOOOOSH!

The point is that all the self-righteous twaddle about "public health" is far less important than making sure the loot keeps a-rolling into the coffers for the ruling class.

Of course, all of the bar and restaurant operators put out of business by their pious proltroonery can go suck a big chili dog.

Honest question. Did a lot of bars/restaurants go under because of smoking bans?

Of course not. But I bet a lot would if states began to rescind the smoking bans.

 

[RDD_1210]

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers.

Oh, bullshit...It's for the power drunk posturing politicians, who never met an aspect of society that they didn't want to micromanage.

If they really gave a shit about the non-smokers, paring back these idiotic smoking bans wouldn't even be considered.

Right, they just did it to flex their political muscles. Solid read.

 

[Foxfyre]

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers. The difference between alcohol and cigarette smoking is you can't get second hand drunk. Drinking only affects the users health and has no bearing on the people around him/her.

If that were only true, but alas it is not. It is true that you don't get second-hand drunk, but with modern ventilation systems, smokeless ashtrays, etc., exposure to second hand smoke is not that big of a problem for those who wish to avoid it. But so far as I know there is no such thing as co-dependency related to somebody's else's addiction to nicotine. There is absolutely such a thing as co-dependency to somebody else's excessive drinking, drug addition, gambling problems, etc.

Tell me what codependency has to do when it comes to complete strangers drinking at a bar. One persons drinking does not affect another. You people will twist arguments any way you can.

Well, 'we people' can read what is written, however, and address the point the other was making rather than reducing them to 'you people' and twisting what they say into something other than what was said.

 

[RDD_1210]

If that were only true, but alas it is not. It is true that you don't get second-hand drunk, but with modern ventilation systems, smokeless ashtrays, etc., exposure to second hand smoke is not that big of a problem for those who wish to avoid it. But so far as I know there is no such thing as co-dependency related to somebody's else's addiction to nicotine. There is absolutely such a thing as co-dependency to somebody else's excessive drinking, drug addition, gambling problems, etc.

Tell me what codependency has to do when it comes to complete strangers drinking at a bar. One persons drinking does not affect another. You people will twist arguments any way you can.

Well, 'we people' can read what is written, however, and address the point the other was making rather than reducing them to 'you people' and twisting what they say into something other than what was said.

Soooo......codependency has nothing to do with what we're talking about here?

 

[Oddball]

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers.

Oh, bullshit...It's for the power drunk posturing politicians, who never met an aspect of society that they didn't want to micromanage.

If they really gave a shit about the non-smokers, paring back these idiotic smoking bans wouldn't even be considered.

Right, they just did it to flex their political muscles. Solid read.

They did it because of image....Nothing more.

As is already painfully evident, if the reputed "public health" were so damned important to them the issue wouldn't even be on the table.