0
   

WOW, Ireland bans smoking in pubs!

 
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 11:35 pm
Misti26 wrote:
No Kicky, you're the one who stinks in your thoughts.

I just returned from Las VEgas where my sister has had part of her lung removed, strictly from smoking. I thought for sure she was leaving us and I would never know her love again, but she came through it and all I hope right now is that she will have the strength to overcome any temptation to smoke again in her lifetime.


And my uncle died in a fire in his house because he was drunk and started the house on fire. But that doesn't mean I get to tell everyone else what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Your logic is...well, not logical. It's just about your own selfish desire to foist your beliefs on others.
0 Replies
 
Misti26
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 11:39 pm
I'm sorry about your uncle Kicky.

No, I don't care if others believe what I believe .. It's just my belief and that's what we're all here for. I'm definitely not trying to sell what I believe to others, just trying to tell you my side.

I love you anyway:)
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 11:47 pm
Oh come on. You love me!? Now that's just playing dirty...if you're not going to get all mad about it and fight with me, then I'm just going to just have to change my mind, agree with you, and let you win this argument!

So there!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 12:16 am
I agree with Dag and Misti. Even when I did smoke, I felt the same way. This is one of the weird and frustrating issues that can't be mediated, it would seem.

Here's what I'd like to see happen, but it won't. Bars didn't want to go smokeless because they thought it'd kill business. We've seen that it hasn't really killed business. They had to be forced by law to ban smoking or they never would have done it. I think after some time, cities should set aside a certain number of smoking licenses that can be available via a lottery. They'd pay a lot for them, but that money would be funneled into anti-smoking campaigns and healthcare/treatment for people who's health was shot from smoke. It won't happen, though, because people still have to work at those bars.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 12:18 am
littlek wrote:
Bars didn't want to go smokeless because they thought it'd kill business. We've seen that it hasn't really killed business.


Yes, it has. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

More tomorrow, if I remember. Now I must sleep.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 12:19 am
ok
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 12:55 am
Misti26 wrote:
Ireland and England is way behind compared to the USA as far as creating a healthy environment,


Some may have different opinions :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 01:04 am
There's a website online, which give's some arguments re kicky's claims

The Facts

Although (still) smoking myself, I have my doubts that you can clearly narrow all losses in pub/bar business to smoking bans - we don't have one yet in most other European countries, but pubs close there as well and business in bars/pubs/restaurants becomes worse and worser.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 08:54 am
Yes, Walter, that is the exact link that I was going to post.

I'm just saying that I feel for those sole-proprietorships who have had their nice little divey bars and have gone along and lived quiet lives, not bothering anyone for years, and then all of a sudden the government decides to impose this blanket bullshit law on them, and who cares if they don't have the money to pay for the new way of business? No, they just jam the f*cking law right up these people's asses, no thought at all to what might become of them. But hey, as long as that big corporate bitch chain restaurant/bar that looks exactly like every other corporate bitch chain restaurant/bar is happy, who cares, right?

It's always the small business guy that gets f*cked. Do you think the guy who is just scraping by is happy that he now has to spend thousands more to keep his little dive running? Oh wait, you don't care, because now your clothes won't smell like smoke, and you get to poison your liver without all that unhealthy smoke to hurt your nice healthy pink lungs. What a whiny little hypocritical bitch society we have become.

Aaah, screw it. I don't care enough to get into this anymore. Either you hear what I'm saying or you don't.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 09:06 am
Quote:
Restaurants, bars gain business under smoke ban

By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | April 4, 2005

Sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of a statewide smoking ban, disproving predictions that the prohibition would inflict serious damage on the hospitality industry, Harvard researchers are scheduled to report today.


link

Quote:
t is a movement hailed as a signal public health triumph and a sweeping social shift. But an increasing body of evidence also suggests that what's good for the health of workers and patrons may also boost the bottom line of businesses.

''Now, we can tell other states considering this kind of law: 'If you implement this law, you're not only going to have a better work environment -- you don't have to affect the economics of your hospitality industry,' " said Gregory Connolly, an author of the Harvard study and former chief of the tobacco control program at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, where he was an ardent champion of initiatives to stop smoking.

The Harvard researchers reviewed state tax records for all restaurants, bars, and nightclubs from July through December of last year -- the first six months of the statewide ban -- and compared them with receipts for the comparable period in previous years.

To make an apples-to-apples comparison, the researchers took into account inflation. Even after doing that, they found that tax collections on meals rose about 9 percent after the ban went into effect compared with the July through December average for 1999 through 2003. The researchers also found that alcoholic beverage excise tax collections remained essentially steady.

Similarly, the figures showed a slight rise in the number of people working in restaurants and bars.

''We had anticipated that and projected that, but no one believed us," said Joyce Redford, director of the North Shore Tobacco Control Program, which covers nine cities and towns. ''Now look: Lo and behold, it's exactly what happened."

Even the business alliance that once stood determinedly in opposition to the ban, sending it to repeated defeats on Beacon Hill, concedes that the law has had no persistent negative effects.


the effect on business was much the same in Toronto when the smoking ban came in.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 09:20 am
You know, folks, when I heard that Peter Jennings had lung cancer, and had quit smoking twenty years prior to this, I had to think things through again. I really like that anchor man, and I hate that he has to go through chemo, but I do wonder if smoking has anything to do with his situation.

As far as banning smoking in pubs, etc. I have noticed a sharp decline in patrons of local restaurants here. I think the addiction has more to do with the hands, than the nicotine, however.

The most important thing involves Legislation, but I've said that a million times, so I'll quit now.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 09:37 am
ehBeth wrote:
Quote:
Restaurants, bars gain business under smoke ban

By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | April 4, 2005

Sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of a statewide smoking ban, disproving predictions that the prohibition would inflict serious damage on the hospitality industry, Harvard researchers are scheduled to report today.


link

Quote:
t is a movement hailed as a signal public health triumph and a sweeping social shift. But an increasing body of evidence also suggests that what's good for the health of workers and patrons may also boost the bottom line of businesses.

''Now, we can tell other states considering this kind of law: 'If you implement this law, you're not only going to have a better work environment -- you don't have to affect the economics of your hospitality industry,' " said Gregory Connolly, an author of the Harvard study and former chief of the tobacco control program at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, where he was an ardent champion of initiatives to stop smoking.

The Harvard researchers reviewed state tax records for all restaurants, bars, and nightclubs from July through December of last year -- the first six months of the statewide ban -- and compared them with receipts for the comparable period in previous years.

To make an apples-to-apples comparison, the researchers took into account inflation. Even after doing that, they found that tax collections on meals rose about 9 percent after the ban went into effect compared with the July through December average for 1999 through 2003. The researchers also found that alcoholic beverage excise tax collections remained essentially steady.

Similarly, the figures showed a slight rise in the number of people working in restaurants and bars.

''We had anticipated that and projected that, but no one believed us," said Joyce Redford, director of the North Shore Tobacco Control Program, which covers nine cities and towns. ''Now look: Lo and behold, it's exactly what happened."

Even the business alliance that once stood determinedly in opposition to the ban, sending it to repeated defeats on Beacon Hill, concedes that the law has had no persistent negative effects.


the effect on business was much the same in Toronto when the smoking ban came in.


Right. This is all you hear. These kinds of statistics are all about the general effect overall. Kind of like how in America the worker is getting f*cked over again and again, but as long as America's bottom line is good, we stupid sheep are supposed to go, "well, isn't that good for us!" How about some specifics about which businesses are the ones that get hurt, or have had to fold because of it?

Okay, now I really am going to leave this thread...unless somebody else posts something that pisses me off.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 09:51 am
kickycan wrote:
How about some specifics about which businesses are the ones that get hurt, or have had to fold because of it?


Well, that Harvard study looked at the same businesses before and after - not general business results.

Can't tell you about businesses that got hurt by the smoking ban in my neighbourhood, as they're all doing as well, or better, except for the Scottish pub that never figured out that they needed to actually serve food that was edible.

The stats here have been quite good, the original version of the ban split out family restaurants from bars. You could smoke in places that didn't allow people under 18. Since people with kids seem to spend more money when they go out, true bars that could still allow smoking - but no kids - started to have some problems. Once the ban went into full effect, things started to equalize (which made/makes no sense to me - but it was the case) again.

The rate of restaurant failure is enormous, always has been. <ask hamburger, he used to be a consultant for the federal business development bank here> What the current stats are showing is that the smoking ban didn't effect the rate of restaurant closings.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 10:12 am
<On Jennings, Letty, he did go back to smoking after 911. Not sure how long. I am not a fan of blaming people for their illnesses, although statistics do correlate, re smoking and other behaviors - so I won't go on about it; I'd rather express sympathy for him.>
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2005 05:15 pm
kickycan wrote:
I'm just saying that I feel for those sole-proprietorships who have had their nice little divey bars and have gone along and lived quiet lives, not bothering anyone for years, and then all of a sudden the government decides to impose this blanket bullshit law on them, and who cares if they don't have the money to pay for the new way of business? No, they just jam the f*cking law right up these people's asses, no thought at all to what might become of them. But hey, as long as that big corporate bitch chain restaurant/bar that looks exactly like every other corporate bitch chain restaurant/bar is happy, who cares, right?

It's always the small business guy that gets f*cked. Do you think the guy who is just scraping by is happy that he now has to spend thousands more to keep his little dive running? Oh wait, you don't care, because now your clothes won't smell like smoke, and you get to poison your liver without all that unhealthy smoke to hurt your nice healthy pink lungs. What a whiny little hypocritical bitch society we have become.


APPLAUSE!

(so wants to hug Kicky for that right now ... and I'm a non-smoker.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/13/2025 at 03:44:19