Exposing the lack of compassion by conservatives and
debunking right wing hypocrisy at every opportunity.
... on my "Kiss My Ass Meter."
Substitute drinking beer for smoking cigarettes in the absurd graphs I quoted above and you will see where I'm coming on this. Since the Ohio smoking ban went into effect, a measure as draconian as it could possibly be, our receipts are down between 20%-30%. That translated into two jobs I don't offer anymore.
Two shifts I don't have the business to keep an extra person on to cover, and everyone else picking up the slack. Add in the sales tax I don't have to pay on the food and drink I don't sell, the withholding, social security, medicare, unemployment tax and worker's compensation I don't pay on two employees. It's not just our place that's felt the effects.
This after we spent $18,000 on renovations to provide an hermetically sealed, negatively pressurized smoking area with separate heating and air conditioning -- as required by the short-lived yet more reasonable smoking ban the county health commissioner (illegally) imposed. That was followed by a city-wide ban when the county ban was thrown out by the courts, the city ban allowing reasonable exemptions for smaller establishments that sold more alcohol than food which we barely (just) qualified for. All for naught.
Two miles up the road, across the border in Michigan, they're smoking and drinking AND playing Keno in the bars. (Okay, we'll probably be getting Keno too.)
It's a bar. -- Full Stop.
Adults -- all over 21 -- like to sit around and drink and smoke and talk there. That's what they do. You don't like it. Go some place else, we won't miss you.
These high-and-mighty assholes who banned smoking in my little corner bar would never be caught dead hanging with my customers anyway -- 90% of whom smoke. (Yes, we did the math.) If there was really a market for non-smoking bars in our little corner of the world, the market would have already taken care of what we do there.
We ban fighters, kick out hookers and call the cops on junkies cuz they're bad for business. Banning smoking has a completely different effect on business. It's killing it. And since business is down, it's harder to afford advertising too. Besides, since it's a State-wide ban, who exactly am I supposed to "reach out" to?
Non-smokers duped the public with their convoluted imposition of two competing bans on the ballot -- and they know it -- one with reasonable exemptions and one with a well funded misleading advertising campaign. Funny. Bars that feature naked women can claim the benefit of First Amendment protections for their blatantly exploitive practices that attract prostitution and drug dealers like flies to shit. But you could fill my place with nothing but smokers, not bothering each other since all of them (including the employees) smoke, and we'd be breaking the law if we any one of us lit up.
A woman can walk down the street and smoke and it's okay, but if she takes her shirt off she gets busted. Yet she can get paid to take off everything IN-side (pasties and g-string if they're serving booze please) but don't you dare Flick your Bic.
What utter bullshit.
They want us to reach out? I can reach out to the perves and probably do better than we are now. I could let the druggies in and do even better. I'd like to keep it as a place where folks can stop by after work and relax and feel safe -- which includes enjoying a good smoke. I'd also like to afford to hire more help back so they can get better service, cuz we're as stretched as thin as we can be right now.
Adapt? WTF, there's a State-wide ban. There's no smoking in our bar, or any bar. We've had adaptation shoved down our throats.
Bar owners frequently complain that they've lost business due to the
smoking ban and that should come as no surprise to an industry that
deals in the twin vices of smoking and drinking. But if business is as
bad as they claim, perhaps it's because they haven't reached out and
promoted their establishments to nonsmokers.
If they would prefer to go out of business rather than adapt to the public's preference for clean air, it's their choice.
Substitute drinking beer for smoking cigarettes in the absurd graphs I quoted above and you will see where I'm coming on this. Since the Ohio smoking ban went into effect, a measure as draconian as it could possibly be, our receipts are down between 20%-30%. That translated into two jobs I don't offer anymore.
Two shifts I don't have the business to keep an extra person on to cover, and everyone else picking up the slack. Add in the sales tax I don't have to pay on the food and drink I don't sell, the withholding, social security, medicare, unemployment tax and worker's compensation I don't pay on two employees. It's not just our place that's felt the effects.
This after we spent $18,000 on renovations to provide an hermetically sealed, negatively pressurized smoking area with separate heating and air conditioning -- as required by the short-lived yet more reasonable smoking ban the county health commissioner (illegally) imposed. That was followed by a city-wide ban when the county ban was thrown out by the courts, the city ban allowing reasonable exemptions for smaller establishments that sold more alcohol than food which we barely (just) qualified for. All for naught.
Two miles up the road, across the border in Michigan, they're smoking and drinking AND playing Keno in the bars. (Okay, we'll probably be getting Keno too.)
It's a bar. -- Full Stop.
Adults -- all over 21 -- like to sit around and drink and smoke and talk there. That's what they do. You don't like it. Go some place else, we won't miss you.
These high-and-mighty assholes who banned smoking in my little corner bar would never be caught dead hanging with my customers anyway -- 90% of whom smoke. (Yes, we did the math.) If there was really a market for non-smoking bars in our little corner of the world, the market would have already taken care of what we do there.
We ban fighters, kick out hookers and call the cops on junkies cuz they're bad for business. Banning smoking has a completely different effect on business. It's killing it. And since business is down, it's harder to afford advertising too. Besides, since it's a State-wide ban, who exactly am I supposed to "reach out" to?
Non-smokers duped the public with their convoluted imposition of two competing bans on the ballot -- and they know it -- one with reasonable exemptions and one with a well funded misleading advertising campaign. Funny. Bars that feature naked women can claim the benefit of First Amendment protections for their blatantly exploitive practices that attract prostitution and drug dealers like flies to shit. But you could fill my place with nothing but smokers, not bothering each other since all of them (including the employees) smoke, and we'd be breaking the law if we any one of us lit up.
A woman can walk down the street and smoke and it's okay, but if she takes her shirt off she gets busted. Yet she can get paid to take off everything IN-side (pasties and g-string if they're serving booze please) but don't you dare Flick your Bic.
What utter bullshit.
They want us to reach out? I can reach out to the perves and probably do better than we are now. I could let the druggies in and do even better. I'd like to keep it as a place where folks can stop by after work and relax and feel safe -- which includes enjoying a good smoke. I'd also like to afford to hire more help back so they can get better service, cuz we're as stretched as thin as we can be right now.
Subscribe via Email
5 Comments:
The people usually kicked out of a bar can now stand out in front and hassle patrons. They'll be the first ones to "report" your bar to be sure you won't ignore the ban to keep people coming outside.
It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined
with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely
artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the
standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology
does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial
and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has
set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not
scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.
The anti smoking agencies do not want safe standards that would still allow
people to smoke...they simply want a ban that will push smokers
outdoors like outcasts.
_________________________________
All of the SHS hype was created for an agenda by big business to bring profits to itself. The world needs to wake up to corporate scams designed to bring profits to ‘their’ industry. In this case it would be the no-smoke products FOR STARTERS. It makes it VERY understandable why the same industry BOUGHT the smoking bans thru grants to the American Cancer Society. Tracking negative research funding from square one, the same fingers apply.
ALL in the same FOOD GROUP, all belonging to the Nightshade family: Broccoli, Potato, Tobacco, Tomato, Green Pepper and other foods contain nicotine. We can eat them but can’t smoke them? Next we will NOT be able to eat them as that same industry will want to take it into prescriptions ALSO for the good it does. DO YOUR RESEARCH!
Likes and dislikes are a fact in any thing on this earth. Choice is a God given right and natural.
Free Enterprise (business owners choice).
Free Choice (customers choice)
And signs are a wonderful invention. What a novel idea, Made in the USA!
I cannot believe, venues who have been clearly affected by these "forced bans" are not getting compensated.
I know this will not be news to those who keep up with the news, but hopefully it is news for some-one -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.
I believe the study below is the one the article refers too.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Enstrom/Kabat study
Also-
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/
Air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
freedom2choose. info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike, please, join our forums and become a member, Intolerance leads to hatred, that is not healthy for our children or Countries. Stop the brainwashing and misinformation
forces.org, stand up and be vocal
mandyv
Me, I always wanted to open a hash bar. Too bad for us, eh Mark?
POST A COMMENT