After listening to four and a half hours of public comment, the eight members of the City Council were finally able to weigh in and vote on a proposal to ban smoking in all Fayetteville bars.
And that was just one of the meetings where public discussion was heard.
Although a majority of aldermen voted in favor of the amendment, our prediction that the measure would fail to receive the six necessary votes to pass turned out to be true.
In all, the chamber podium was visited over 100 times by Fayetteville residents throughout the proposal’s three readings.
Much like at the first two meetings, public comment was nearly split with 26 people speaking in favor of the ban and 21 speaking against it.
Also in line with the previous meetings, the majority of those in favor argued that it was a health issue. Those against, continued to demand that it was an issue of personal choice.
Of course, the decision was ultimately up to the council.
If those in favor of an expanded smoking ban aren’t willing to try again with a possible few new aldermen in early 2013, they do have the option of gathering enough signatures to put the issue to a public vote in November 2012.
For now, here’s a brief recap of what each council member said before casting their final vote.
Adella Gray
Ward 1, Position 1
Vote: Yes
“We know that we have bartenders and musicians who are spending lots of hours inside bars,” said Gray. “We’ve also heard tonight that no amount of secondhand smoke is harmless. So I’m really troubled about why we feel we’re going to protect the workplace of everyone in our city, but we’re not going to protect workers in bars.”
She said she thought it was a big mistake to overlook the fact that many bar employees do not have insurance because of the economic impact it could have on those residents of Fayetteville who do have insurance. “If we have insurance, we’re paying for the person who does not have insurance for their health treatment,” she said.
“Our responsibility as policy makers for the citizens of Fayetteville is to make sure that they have a healthy workplace.”
Brenda Thiel
Ward 1, Position 2
Vote: Yes
Thiel said she believes smoking bans can have a more direct effect. She recalled a previous Fayetteville ordinance that banned smoking in places like grocery stores and doctors offices and said, “I think that ban encouraged a lot of people at that time to quit smoking, or to never start smoking.”
And while she said she was sympathetic to the possibility that some businesses could suffer from a smoking ban, she felt like the council does have the authority and responsible to regulate public safety.
“I think the good things about this outweigh the negative,” she said.
Mark Kinion
Ward 2, Position 1
Vote: No
Alderman Kinion said that throughout his time working for the American Lung Association, he developed a belief that education, not legislation, was the key to keeping people from smoking.
“We live in a community that prides itself in being very well educated,” said Kinion, “and if you’re very well educated, then you’re going to make wiser choices.”
“But for me to legislate someone’s choices, I’m going to find that very hard.”
Kinion said he went into 18 different bars over the last six weeks and without identifying himself, talked to employees about the issue.
“I didn’t have one employee say, ‘The city ought to stop smoking in this bar’,” said Kinion. “In fact, emphatically, all of them said ‘I chose to work here and this is a choice for me’.”
Matthew Petty
Ward 2, Position 2
Vote: Yes
Alderman Petty began by reiterating his previously stated stance that indoor secondhand smoke was an “exceptional” danger.
He said while he agrees with Alderman Kinion’s notion that education is the best way to address the issue, he believes legislation can play a strong role in that process.
“There is nothing that provides more education than the experience of every bar you go to, of the social norm becoming, and of every person knowing that it is wrong to smoke indoors,” said Petty.
“That is an educated measure that can only happen through public policy and the scale of that cannot be overstated.”
Justin Tennant
Ward 3, Position 1
Vote: No
“The selfish part of me wants this to pass,” began Tennant, adding that he doesn’t smoke and never has.
“I don’t like to be around smoke and I fully understand that people who smoke are making a bad decision for their life,” he said.
He said although he will, on occasion, go to a smoky bar in Fayetteville, he fully understands the consequences of such a decision.
“As government, I believe we should try to change people’s minds on something like this that we all believe is dangerous, but saying that you need protection from your own choices and decisions is, to me, just wrong.”
Bobby Ferrell
Ward 3, Position 2
Vote: No
“If you ever see me vote to remove an individual liberty,” said Ferrell, “Please get me a physician.”
“I smoke, I’ve smoked for years and I’m addicted,” said Ferrell, “but I still think that I have the right to smoke.”
Ferrell said he felt like a ban would have a negative impact on local businesses and, in turn, local jobs and that he didn’t believe the “few sanctuary bars” which still allowed smoking were something the council should regulate.
“I won’t vote to knock these jobs down.”
Rhonda Adams
Ward 4, Position 1
Vote: Yes
One reason why Adams said she’d be voting for the amendment was because she felt like the current law was a form of discrimination.
“One of the people I work with said to me ‘I have cystic fibrosis and I can’t go to events in town where smoking exists’,” she said. “I think that’s unfair.”
Adams said she and many of her constituents are very passionate about the health of Fayetteville employees. In fact, she said she has had people in Ward 4 tell her they think she should vote ‘no’ on the issue because it doesn’t go far enough.
“Those people are telling me it needs to include patios and sidewalks and parks,” said Adams. “But we’re not doing that yet.”
Sarah Lewis
Ward 4, Position 2
Vote: Yes
Alderwoman Lewis had a few different reasons for why she was in support of the amendment.
“In this case,” said Lewis, “you have a situation where, in a public space, which is any private or public building, the actions of a person are creating a nuisance to others. And the city is completely in its space to abate nuisances.”
She said she also felt like allowing smoking in bars minimizes people’s options in a job search.
“When you have an economic situation where you have fewer jobs and then you take into account if I’m pregnant or asthmatic or have MS, all of a sudden my options are minimized considerably,” said Lewis. “I think everyone should have open choices for the jobs that are available.”
“As a council member, we have to consider all of the citizens and weight the rights of one and the rights of the other,” she said. “If the action of one is affecting another, that’s where you say, ‘It’s not really OK.’ And that’s what freedom is.”
Alderman Lewis! If 20 people, including the help are smoking in a privately owned bar, WHO is being annoyed? You want the bar to throw out all it’s customers and serve the ONE non smoker? How infantile a pink bubble your world is! The OWNER of the business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, AND to hire anyone. Get out in the real world and out of your bubble!
Thanks, FF, for this breakdown. It helps me understand at least the line of reasoning of each of the council members.
Well at least one of my ward’s aldermen is sticking up for personal liberty; thank you Mark! I am also very impressed that someone actually thought of talking to the workers that this ban supposedly is protecting.
I agree, Me. Great job Mark Kinion!
I agree,ME and Arkinvestor… Thanks Mark Kinion I appreciate you being on the council…Everytime I have called my alderman’s to voice my opinion they vote exactly the opposite. The next election I will be voting against them. This is still America and I am tired of the goverment telling us the taxpayers what we can an can’t do…Enough……
Well you didn’t mention coal miners! No one earth with half a brain would say there is a safe coal mine.
But never fear those that are employed will enjoy poverty when the American Heart and Lung Association bans coal mining as is indicated upon their website.
With the increase in energy cost that implies I guess non smokers will have to go out side to escape the heat of bulido.vs when the owners can not afford to run air conditioning, or heat in the winter. Welcome to punishment conditioning, After all that is the design of bans to punish smokers and have them buy smoking cessation mess which should be free as a public service of the so called non profits so interested in public health.
News Flash on the original post I had not seen this!
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) immediately pounced on AEP’s announcement.
“This is a perfect example of the EPA implementing rules and regulations without considering the devastating impact they may have on local economies and jobs,” Capito said.
Capito said she will write a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking whether the agency took into account the economic impact of its regulations.
“Let me be clear, it’s decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy,” said Manchin, an outspoken critic of the EPA.
But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are “reasonable, common-sense and achievable.”
The agency also stressed that the regulations are essential for protecting public health.
“These reasonable steps taken under the Clean Air Act will reduce harmful air pollution, including mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution, and as a result protect our families, particularly children,” EPA said in a statement.
In a statement outlining its plan to comply with EPA’s regulations, AEP said it would need to retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation in the coming years. The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.
In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.
Sources http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20110610/NEWS01/106100305/AEP-New-rules-would-lead-shutdowns-job-cuts?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage
http://alabamacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/03/american-lung-association-coal-fired.html
I stronlgy urge these politicians think a bit about kissing up to those that have hidden agendas!
How can America be competetive in manufacturing with issue or excuse of in the name of public health we can starve while being healthy?
Billy–
Fortunately for the power companies, if not for us, the EPA regulations referred to are somewhat watered down, compared to original proposals. The energy industry “helped” with the rewriting. In any case, it is the EPA’s job to protect the environment, not jobs.
Power companies are accustomed to spending billions of dollars, and the 6 to 8 billion dollar figure given is in large part money they would have to spend anyway.
RE “How can America be competetive in manufacturing with issue or excuse of in the name of public health we can starve while being healthy?”
America is not going to starve because 600 power-plant jobs were lost. Alternative energy, as it becomes more viable, should more than make up for jobs lost in the conventional energy sector. I might just as well ask how America can be competitive in manufacturing if everybody is trying to work while attached to oxygen machines.
Conversion to alternative energy production should entail a revamping of infrastructure and technology similar to the government projects of the Depression, the construction of the interstate highway system, and the growth of the nuclear power industry– all of which created thousands of jobs. Further– and this might please you, the jobs will be for the most part demanded by the private-sector, rather than driven by the government.
Not that the reduction of industrial-scale air pollution is relevant to this thread. At the very least, you can’t try to justify pollution from coal-fired generators by telling us we can choose to go to an outdoors that is pollution-free.
I imagine construction workers were happy to work on scaffolds without guardrails, and roofers were pleased to work without safety harnesses until laws were passed mandating them.
The ban would protect employees whether they care or not. I’m not impressed by daredevil bartenders, or their opinions on personal safety, or arguments that use them as their sole basis.
But David, dear internet friend, you are not impressed by anything ;)
That is generally true, old online chum; thank you for noticing. As I’ve suggested elsewhere, I am occasionally impressed by myself. (I cannot bring myself to add an emoticon. That’s just as well, as it might not be entirely appropriate anyway.)
Sarah Lewis, what are you trying to say in that last quote? All actions that I do or you do are affecting someone, so I guess that’s not really ok? Also is freedom not the power to do as you want? By voting in this you are taking action and that’s not really ok.
Alderwoman Lewis: first there’s the “coming to the nuisance defense”. A “coming to the nuisance” defense may be successful if a defendant can prove that he or she engaged in the offending activity with similar results before the plaintiff moved to the neighborhood. For example, a plaintiff is unlikely to succeed in a nuisance action for barking dogs when the plaintiff knowingly bought property next to a large dog kennel.
People are AWARE that smoking is occurring, therefore the “coming to the nuisance” defense could be used.
Second, and this kills me, you said “She said she also felt like allowing smoking in bars minimizes people’s options in a job search.” Ma’am, if your local bars close, there will be NO JOBS for ANYONE whether they smoke or not! In Ohio, we bar owners have lost $19,194,768 in liquor sales ALONE (not including beer sales losses, vending losses, etc.). Conversely, 14.6 MILLION MORE BOTTLES OF LIQUOR have been sold for home and party consumption since the smoking ban on our private property bars. Hardly an ideal “public health” outcome.
Then, there’s just the plain fact that WE OWN our bars. WE put everything we own on the line to open a business, not voters, not aldermen to take away. I have friends who have not only lost their bar but their home as well DIRECTLY resulting from the smoking ban. The Michigan lottery director testified yesterday that Michigan lost $82 million in keno sales since their ban began a year ago and he ATTRIBUTED the losses to Michigan’s SMOKING BAN. If you think that people are too stupid to read signs and decide for themselves whether to patronize or work in a smoker friendly bar and that YOU must step in to protect ADULT ONLY patrons/employees, then this country is in a whole lot of trouble. Property rights are SACRED. You do NOT get to take away the ability for us to feed our families.
As somebody who has spent a great deal of time in Michigan let me tell you this- the people of Michigan have no jobs and the economy has TANKED much more worse (roughly 20% unemployment at the height of the recession in the Detroit area) than in most other areas of the nation yes the reason people aren’t wasting as much $ on the lottery is smoking? PLEASE – you been to MIchigan in the last 10 years at all? If that keno loss was 100% because of a smoking ban then my name is Nathan Arizona of Arizona Unpainted Furniture
As a resident of Ward 4 I’d like to thank Mrs. Adams and Ms. Lewis (as well as the other 3 members who voted yes) for their votes
Nathan Arizona wrote of the $82 Million Dollar Keno losses in Michigan, “If that keno loss was 100% because of a smoking ban then my name is Nathan Arizona of Arizona Unpainted Furniture.”
Mr. Arizona, if you think you are more qualified than the state lottery director to determine what affects state lottery revenues then perhaps you should apply for the position. Meanwhile I think I’d trust his word.
Why? Simple: all you have to do is look at other states where smoking bans have been forced in by the campaigns of the national ban lobbyists. Look right at one of your nearby neighbors: Minnesota. Check out this simple graph, taken *directly* from Minnesota tax records of the State’s “Charitable Gambling Revenue” over five years of increasing smoking bans in that state:
http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/smoking-ban-economics-cooking-the-numbers/#comment-65
You’ll see how the state receipts dropped at separate points EXACTLY in line with their smoking bans — to the tune of well over 100 million dollars.
Next time you interact with Nathan Arizona, tell him that in “Raising Arizona”, Nathan Arizona’s store was called “Unpainted Arizona”. Incidentally, he changed his name from Nathan Huffheins. “Would you shop at a store called ‘Unpainted Huffheins’?”
In discussing the revenue and income caused by smoking bans, citing the losses from keno isn’t a good argument. For one thing, there is a higher percentage of smokers among keno players than among the general population– that is, people who eat and drink. For another, while gambling may be an another in many smokers’ repertoire of addictions, gambling is not nearly the ingrained social behavior that drinking is. (Keno particularly is a solitary game.) In other words, smokers are more likely to give up keno than drinking in bars.
Smoking bans in bars, which is the issue in Fayetteville and the topic of this thread, are generally shown to cause no net loss to the hospitality industry as a whole.
Smoking bans cause bars to lose 10% of sales volume and employment. Bars make up for it by raising prices 10%. Anti-smokers are telling the truth when say bars report no loss of profit. They are lying by omission when they forget to say bans are not free, remaining customers pay for them.
Note that (in a response to the argument that smoking bans cause a huge loss of overall revenue) I said “Smoking bans in bars… are generally shown to cause no net loss to the hospitality industry as a whole.” Bars adapt and compete– or not. Bar employees get other jobs– often in restaurant markets improved by smoking bans. Bar owners do something else. Remaining customers who pay more to drink in bars instead of drinking in restaurants clearly have reasons for their loyalty that make the added expense worthwhile. It may well be that the increase in price is made up for by lower health-care costs.
Robert! :) Good to see you again. You really should come out to play with us more often here in the real world. Just don’t drag the mudpitters along with you. :> Send me an email sometime over at Cantiloper via the AOL system. It’d be good to be in touch!
:)
Michael
Ending smoking won’t cause bars to close. People who smoke don’t go to bars to smoke. They can smoke at home or outside. People also rarely go to bars “just to drink”. They go because they want to socialize with other humans.
I go just to drink. I may have anoriblem though.
Dang, this is what you get when you start before noon.
FYI, its cheaper to buy your booze at the liquor store. Drink it at home. Smoke if you got ‘em.
But no, people go to bars for a reason. It isn’t because its the only place they can smoke or drink. Its also not the least expensive place to smoke or drink. Its because they want to be around other peepul.
Banning smoking won’t suddenly turn all the bar flys into hermits. They will still come, because smoking and drinking is not the primary motivation for them coming in the first place.
What dream world do YOU live in? You’ve drank their kool-aid. Bars DO close because of the smoking ban. Ours, day before the ban and all the days prior-PACKED. The day the ban went into effect – 4 customers the entire day. It didn’t get much better after that. What they neglect to tell bar owners is that we NEVER DO SEE all these “new” customers who’ve been waiting for bars to be smoke-free, like the antis claim. I’ve found that most anti-smokers are also anti-alcohol. They just want to tell everyone else how to live..not that they ever intended to step foot in your business.
Where is your bar Pam? I’m wondering which ban you were affected by.
Outside of Columbus, Ohio. Statewide smoking ban went into effect 01/01/2007. We lost 313 bars the first year alone. The state has spent over $4 million enforcing this stupid law.
By your reasoning every business should have the same menus as say red lobster. We know that’s not the case as businesses that are successful usually have a distinct difference thatcaters to their clientele.
But Burgerboy I’d much rather by choice sit in a restaurant or bar (I do not drink, so I want some rights to smoke and not be exposed to alcohol ) and smell a bit of cigarette smoke than drive past burger ki.g or your cookout and smell vegi burgers being burnt to a crisp!
Yeah, Pam. What ban affected your business?
Given that smoking is being regulated and gradually phased out in public places, it doesn’t make good longterm business sense to build your business around a strictly smoking clientele. In this day, that is like opening a video rental store.
I’m not at all anti-alcohol. I’m not really even anti-smoking. I am for cleaner, healthier workplaces.
Feltner Bros is going to be opening a non-smoking burger joint on College Avenue in a few weeks. I can guarantee you that I will visit that place several times per month for lunch and dinner. They will get hundreds of dollars from me per year. Its local. Its good food. Its a good deal, and its convenient to me.
Art’s place is just a little ways down the road. I’ve been there for lunch twice in 15 years. Good burgers and bar food, but just not worth it to me to leave smelling like smoke.
I don’t avoid Art’s because they serve beer or because their food sucks. I avoid it because its filled with smoke.
A large majority of consumers do not smoke. It makes sense to broaden your business’ appeal to as many consumers as you possibly can. In 2011, that means not catering to a strictly smoking clientele.
We are NOT A PUBLIC PLACE, we are a PRIVATE BUSINESS. Our business loan, mortgage, payroll, etc. are NOT PAID with public funds! We’re a BAR, not a restaurant, a BAR. We haven’t had smoking in our bar in 4 years so how do you figure we “cater” to smokers? I thought smoking bans were supposed to INCREASE business! What else do we need to do, drag people in off the street? You’re for a cleaner, healthier workplace. How nice. But has anyone ever ASKED our employees what THEY want? We have 5 bartenders. They ALL smoke. But now, they’re sent outside their safe work environment at 2 a.m. (where no other business is open for a mile) to smoke. Don’t you think they should have been consulted? They want their hours back (we’ve cut back 35 hours a week). They want their TIPS back. They want their smoking customers back because they sure haven’t seen the “new” ones we were promised.
Pam–
If you think your PRIVATE BUSINESS is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE (thanks for making your thesis so easy to read), you really need to read up on the law. Any property that is open to members of the public for purposes of making a profit is subject to laws and ordinances regarding building accessibility (unless in a historic building under certain conditions) and safety, food safety (you don’t serve bar food?), fire safety and workplace safety, among others. Even your private home is subject to laws and ordinances. No property is truly private.
Isn’t Ohio in economic straits similar to Michigan’s? Might the loss of bar business have to do with the economy rather than the smoking ban? Might the relative business neutrality or business increase of smoking bans in states with stronger economies be relevant? Could it be that the public doesn’t find your bar as good as it does others? (In other words, do you have a competition problem rather than a clean air problem?) How are you balancing potential profit for attracting customers by “looking the other way” versus losses for noncompliance fines?
And what a coincidence! My lovely wife and I were in Columbus a couple of weeks ago. We had dinner at The Florentine and early lunch at Tony’s Diner. The Florentine was not particularly busy (Thursday night) but Tony’s (Friday midday) was hopping. The hopping was particularly frenetic because nobody was affected by impaired breathing.
Pam says “We haven’t had smoking in our bar for 4 years.”
4 years, huh? As much as you’re whining, seems this oppressive ban would have put you out of business long before.
I live in a dream world where bar owners who spend time building bonds with their clients develop a pretty rock solid following of loyal customers, but when they spend too much time posting reference-less drivel about gambling sales declining in a state with insanely high unemployment levels their own bars tend to fail…
IF IF IF you were run out, then blame the orginial ineffective smoking ban. Had smoking been banned everywhere, customers would still come. Burgerboy is money!
someone shushed me the other day for loudly talking in the movie theater, last time i checked this was america and we were free. i also enjoy peeing in pools
Right on, a-hole. Don’t let those nanny-state, jackbooted thugs keep you from talking loudly during the picture show and peeing in the pool, ideally at the same time. This is America!
Personally, I enjoy wearing headache-inducing amounts of the cheapest cologne I can find when I go to my job as an elevator attendant.
Alderman Lewis, I do believe if you’re pregnant, a bar is not for you.
If it mean the return of the Brewski’s Burger, I am in favor of the smoking ban, if not, well…I don’t really care one way or the other.
Mmmm…Brewski Burger!
can i comment to say i was out on dickson street last night…dinner and drinks in farrell’s bar and lounge – a non smoking bar – -and the place was packed to the gills…and not a cigarette in sight…!!! a few people stepping outside every now and again for their own pleasure…
and then onto the patio at bordino’s…and it too was busy…and even though it’s smoker friendly…what did the smoker’s do – they upped and left to step off the patio to have their cigarette and then came back…it too was relatively busy…
i’m just saying…that’s all…
I would just like to repeat Alderman Kinion’s statement:
===
Kinion said he went into 18 different bars over the last six weeks and without identifying himself, talked to employees about the issue. “I didn’t have one employee say, ‘The city ought to stop smoking in this bar’,” said Kinion. “In fact, emphatically, all of them said ‘I chose to work here and this is a choice for me’.”
===
If you look around the country at all the different ban fights you will find that the Antismokers have spent millions, perhaps even tens of millions of dollars on specially designed surveys purporting to show widespread support for bans “to protect the workers.”
One thing you will **NEVER** see them do is actuall survey THOSE WORKERS! Why? Because they know darn well, just as A. Kinion found out, that the workers almost NEVER support a ban.
See more about the lies that they use to push these bans through, and get yourselves ready for a hard fight: Antismokers never die: they’re like vampires. As long as their funding holds out and they’re getting money in their pockets they’ll be back session after session, year after year, trying to wear the aldermen/women down and threatening them come election time if they don’t vote the “right” way. You can fight them by exposing the lies at the base of the ban. Read the “Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” at:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf
and keep on fighting!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Ah, Mr. McFadden–
I recognize you from Harleyrider Davidson’s friends list on Facebook. (Something about that rich assortment of gaunt, leathery, and/or prematurely-aged faces stuck with me.) Did he direct your attention to this thread, or do you all take turns scouring Google for smoking-ban-related threads to join?
You claim that non-smokers are manipulated by governments (though the great majority of medical evidence against smoking has no relation to government), but you fail to acknowledge the fact that smokers are manipulated– even more insidiously– by tobacco companies. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a libertarian would rather be a slave to a corporation than to government. Of course, that ignores the fact that– considered as groups of people– a corporation is antagonistic and competitive, while the government, being us is, ostensibly, cooperative. At the end of the day, most of us, not being sheep or cows, would rather go with the group that includes us than side with the group that is out to milk us.
RE your favorite quote, according to your Facebook page: “As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.” – Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
Justice Douglas has hit upon an apt description of addiction to smoking. Unfortunately, that twilight doesn’t last long enough for most smokers to quit easily– the addiction is fast and firm. Thanks for the irony.
Have you ever dissected any smokers’ brains? They can end up a real mess, even if they didn’t start out that way.
What ever happened to free choice of the business owner and the customer with signs? It sure is odd you can eat nicotine with no problem (potato, tomato, cauliflower, egg plant, chili’s, green peppers and more). I guess those ‘in power’ think unemployment needs to go UP as it has in other places with bans as businesses fold due to the CHOICE of the customer. … Follow the money to who started and FUNDED the anti research (grants) and the anti-smoke craze (grants). You’ll land in the lap of the maker of the no-smoke products!
History Buff–
RE “What ever happened to free choice of the business owner and the customer with signs?”
Ask the business owner for trying to make a profit by inviting people onto his property, and so making himself responsible for the conditions he subjects the public to. (Homeowners are also responsible for the safety of their guests. That’s one reason the government makes it hard for you to take the opportunity to visit a friend’s meth lab.)
RE “It sure is odd you can eat nicotine with no problem (potato, tomato, cauliflower, egg plant, chili’s, green peppers and more)”
No, it isn’t. The nicotine content of these foods is relatively low, and adverse health effects are limited to those with a particular sensitivity to nicotine. At any rate, your question ignores the fact that nicotine absorption through digestion is different than nicotine absorption through inhalation, that cigarette smoke contains numerous harmful substances other than nicotine, and that your body is designed to eat food, but not to breathe smoke.
RE “Follow the money to who started and FUNDED the anti research (grants) and the anti-smoke craze (grants).”
It makes perfect sense that medical research needs grants but tobacco companies and their shiils don’t. It’s easy to promote the use of an addictive substance. Medical research is at a huge disadvantage because nobody is addicted to science. But if money is the evil element, look at the money that the tobacco industry pours into getting people to smoke and making sure they continue. If the anti-smoking position is a craze, it’s certainly a durable one: in its most recent incarnation, it’s been effective, and growing, for some thirty-five years. As a history buff, you should know that flagpole-sitting, goldfish-swallowing, phone-booth-stuffing, pet rocks, disco and pyramid power were all crazes. How long did they last?
RE “You’ll land in the lap of the maker of the no-smoke products!”
Look at the relative sizes of the tobacco industry and the smoking-cessation industry, and tell me again how the tail wags the dog. And remember: there is only a market for smoking-cessation because enough smokers, despite the addiction, are motivated to quit. The market works! By the way: why is the huge, conservative insurance industry so interested in smoking cessation? Their only possible motivation is that they profit from good health. As conspiracy theories go, this one is pretty cute.
Are you a friend of Harleyrider Davidson and/or Michael J. McFadden? Or are you a random fellow traveler? (A history buff will, of course, get that reference right away.)
I can tell this is an important issue to you. Is this the David Franks that’s Matt Petty’s friend and works for a pharmaceutical company? What do you do currently? Just curious, and it’s not really relevant so I’ll understand if you don’t want to answer, but you seem to be pretty on the ball with your internet commenting.
You’ll have to ask Matt Petty if I am THE David Franks who is a friend of Matthew Petty. However, he and I have never met; we are “friends” only on the Internet.
On the other hand, I can tell you that I do not work for a pharmaceutical company, nor am I a defense attorney, dead poet, photographer, councilman in Luton Borough, or Tory.
I do the cooking, the laundry and most of the driving, I take out the garbage, and I fill the bird feeders.
If ten years ago I said they would ban smoking at my VFW you’d say I was nuts. But just like taxes inch by inch they they increase till you say ouch.
The excuse of in the name of public health is a dangerous threat to liberty to all of us, even the ill as it destroys our own personal choice and opened the door to abuse by the government you can not fight.
All ready health groups are trying to make gun control a public health issue. In Florida the American Academy of Pediatrics is during the state to allow doctors to question a patients gun ownership! There are non smoking and smokers that can readily see the danger in this as now medical info can be exchanged.
It is time to put a halt on this runaway runaway train. To me the politicians will not address unemployment or the true reason health care cost are so high. It is greed ship the jobs out of America makes investors more money the same can be said for the health care industry that will hire sex offenders in nursing homes to increase the profit by lower wages.
Wow. That was panoramic.
If I can have whatever he’s smoking, I am then against the smoking ban.
Ah, Mr. Franks –
Can’t say I recognize you at all, but I think you may be mis-stepping on the premature bit. :>
Yes, I claim so, and yes, I agree that most of the evidence against smoking itself, at least from years past, has little or nothing to do with the government.
As far as smokers being “manipulated” by tobacco companies, I can’t say that I’ve seen a whole lot of that lately. On the other hand I’ve seen a WHALE of a lot of manipulation of both smokers and nonsmokers by antismoking organizations. And yes, I would trust the government more than either party — but that ain’t sayin’ a helluva lot.
Since you don’t seem to be familiar with me in any depth, I’d suggest you might enjoy reading my sites at http://Antibrains.com and in particular, Lie #2 at http://TheTruthIsALie.com
As always, I am open and happy to accept and consider any specific, substantive criticisms you may have.
Cute twist on the Douglas quote, but I was being far more serious. As for dissecting smokers’ brains, well, it’s not that hard actually.
Dissecting Antismokers’ brains is a bit tougher though, because of their size. A microscope will not work, simply because the brains are too small. Same goes for a nanoscope, while a picoscope merely shows a speck in the visual field.
A femtoscope enlarges the speck to a point where it appears to actually have some physical elements while an attoscope allows one to determine that it is more than a unitary mass. A zeptoscope *almost* does the trick as it allows one to detect actual movement of a sort, but it’s not until you invest in a yoctoscope that it’s possible to record several subneutronic particles bouncing around in seemingly random activity.
Unfortunately, there’s also the expense of complete hazmat outfits and precautions when dealing with such things, so for the moment David, your brain is safe.
- MJM
RE “As far as smokers being ‘manipulated’ by tobacco companies, I can’t say that I’ve seen a whole lot of that lately.”
Of course you haven’t. You aren’t inclined to look, and the manipulation is no longer as blatant as having lab-coated actors pose as doctors to talk about the health benefits of smoking. They don’t make a big deal about the gradual increase in the nicotine content of cigarettes or design refinements that enhance nicotine’s effects; they’re pretty quiet about continuing product placements in movies (as they need to be, as such product placements are illegal); and the Internet has hardly any cigarette ads or other involvement with the tobacco industry.
RE “Cute twist on the Douglas quote, but I was being far more serious.”
So was I. The oppression of addiction is no less insidious and destructive than political oppression. Since I don’t have an aggressively hostile attitude toward the government, I don’t consider smoking bans to be oppressive. The Constitution allows the government to “promote the general Welfare”, and public health is part of the general welfare of the nation.
RE “Dissecting Antismokers’ brains is a bit tougher though, because of their size…. [I]t’s not until you invest in a yoctoscope that it’s possible to record several subneutronic particles bouncing around in seemingly random activity.”
Yet you’ve written a whole book on the subject. I take it, then, that your book’s evidence and conclusions are fabricated.
Hey David, guess what… It didn’t pass… no matter how well you argue your points, it’s pointless. Accept it, or go get signatures and or run for office and run things your way. None of the bars that allow smoking are going to miss your business and things will stay the same. Don’t worry I’m sure its not going to affect you, so you might want to spend your time on something a little more productive.
Hey, Bill–
Guess what? My arguments will be of use the next time the matter comes up for discussion. (It will come up again.) In the meantime, they will be archived here and available on Google.
As I’ve noted at least twice before, I have expressed no opinion as to whether the extended smoking ban should have passed. I have no interest in starting a petition or running for office. In fact, my interest in holding office is less than the interest from other people who know me and don’t want me to hold office. I am far more likely to run FROM office. It is far better to persuade the right people than to control the wrong ones.
As for spending my time productively, what could be more productive than researching a topic, analyzing and synthesizing information (Imagine– real information!), creating a valid, useful argument, and making it available for the consideration of people who agree with me (and less-informed people as well)? It certainly appears that in this respect, I am far more productive than you are in my use of the Internet.
It is a real shame that so few people take the opportunity to use a public forum as seriously as I do, but there it is. This deplorable state of affairs does, however, work to my advantage, since the least apt tend to be the ones who disagree with me.
Thank you for your concern.
P.S. David: I guess you could say my previous posting was “anti-panoramic.”
- MJM
Innarested Observer says:
June 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm Pam says “We haven’t had smoking in our bar for 4 years.”
4 years, huh? As much as you’re whining, seems this oppressive ban would have put you out of business long before.
I kills me that you can be so flip and callous. We’ve been depleting our life savings to keep the doors open. So far, we’ve put over $80,000.00 in keeping it open. And guess what? Because we’ve lost money, the business is worth LESS and no one in their right mind would buy a bar NOW in Ohio. My blood’s boiling right now over your comment. You have NO IDEA what we’re going through! THAT’S why I’m “whining”. And you’re an insensitive twit.
Just seems to me if you’re posting $20k in losses every year that you either don’t know how to run the business or there are other factors. If the smoking ban was going to do you in, it shouldn’t have taken four years to figure out that it was time to throw in the towel and do something else.
I hope you make it, but I also think that you’re blaming something that really has almost no connection to your business failing.
Furthermore, Ohio’s a long way from Fayetteville. I just figure if you’re going to butt into our business, I could butt into yours.
David, I hope you don’t mind my general reply postings: arguments in subthread structures tend to get lost to any but the direct participants. I will respond to your points in two or three posts for clarity and so you can focus more easily on my points.
David, you criticize my pointing out that Keno and charitable gambling (both sources of income that are quickly and clearly and unprejudicially tabulated by the government as a matter of public record) show the damage from bans by pointing out that the “topic of this thread” is “smoking bans in bars.” However you then go on to drag in the hospitality industry as a whole in trying to show no harm: “Smoking bans in bars, which is the issue in Fayetteville and the topic of this thread, are generally shown to cause no net loss to the hospitality industry as a whole.” Your point about solitary/social Keno/drinking-in-bars has some validity, but the 5,000+ excess pub closing in Britain would argue against it, as would the experience of the enormous majority of bar owners in the process of going through bans.
Your bait-and-switch to the hospitality industry as a whole is basically playing the Klein trick as discussed in my comments at:
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
and ignoring the pain, suffering, and damage caused to people like Pam. And before you try claiming that her case is isolated, I’d suggest you spend a few minutes looking over the table and the quotes that Samantha, Dave Hitt, I, and a few others gathered several years ago at:
http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm
or you can see an excerpted summary for just NY in my earlier referenced “Lies” booklet at:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf
Regarding my supposed disinclination to “look” at tobacco company manipulations I can assure you that I’ve looked, and they are miniscule compared to the Antismokers. See Lie #2 at http://TheTruthIsALie.com or read my more general discussion of “The Media” in Brains.
I agree with you however on making serious use of the opportunities afforded by the internet.
- MJM
There are two problems with comparing the loss of revenue from keno and from smoking bans in bars. First, as you halfway point out, there is loss to the state as a whole in the case of gambling and to individuals in the case of bars. In the case of losses of gambling revenue, the state will generally account for its loss of revenue. The hospitality industry is relevant to the argument in the case of losses to individual bars because bar employees can change employment within the industry to bars at restaurants (less affected by bans), and bar owners can usually adapt their business to accommodate the market change– offer some food items, market to niche drinkers, and so on. There will always be people who want to drink in bars, and if the competition becomes more fierce among bars, then that is the American way. The hospitality industry keeps making its money; apparently the same number of customers consume the same amount of food and drink from, presumably, about the same number of food service people. (I certainly intended no bait-and-switch. I apologize if the reason for my reference to the hospitality industry was not clear; I tend to forget that the voices in my head are not audible to everybody.)
The other problem is the scale of the losses. You are comparing statewide losses to individual business losses in a way that might be hysterical/sensationalistic/misleading to one looking only at the numbers. (By the way– gambling revenue in Iowa and Michigan appear to be rising, an indication that the economy has been a major influence on earlier revenue losses.)
RE “the 5,000+ excess pub closing in Britain”
Are you saying that the market was oversupplied with pubs? If so, then why shouldn’t they have closed?
RE “…ignoring the pain, suffering, and damage caused to people like Pam”
I hope I have explained to your satisfaction that I accounted for people like Pam. Meanwhile, “smokers’ rights” activists ignore the pain, suffering and damage caused by smoking and being around smokers.
I’m curious: While saying that it is not acceptable for a government to create a change in a segment of a market in order to protect public health, do you take the (usually parallel) position that it is acceptable for an industry to cause pain, suffering and damage to people by laying off and hiring employees willy-nilly in order to protect private profit? (This happens on a grand scale in Wichita all the time.) Is it pain, suffering, and damage that you object to, or is it government? Your selective ignoring makes your position unclear.
Regarding the nicotine in cigarettes. I’m familiar with the study you’re using as your basis. And I’m quite sure you’re also familiar with how it was manipulated. They cherry-picked a set period in order to be able to claim that increase. If they’d extended it a single year further into the past I believe the graph comes out as a flat line rather than an increase. Dr. Siegel went into the details of that on his blog if you’re interested. It was basically a lie, just like the rest of the antismoking lies: “True” within the narrow confines of itself, but a lie in terms of the message it tried to convey to the public.
Your sidebar slaps about product placement and the cig ads on the net etc were cute, but how about backing them up? Start with a couple of facts about the product placement in the last ten years or so, OK? And then maybe point to a few cigarette company ads (please stick to the US/Europe here: I’d imagine they’re still doing whatever they can get away with overseas … as do all companies.
Your comment about Douglas and “promoting the general welfare” is interesting. I’m sure the same argument was used for Prohibition and will probably be used again. Or would you argue that alcohol use is a net benefit to our country’s “general welfare” ?
Judging by your comment I gather you haven’t read Brains. You should if indeed you have the interest in the subject that you seem to express. You might find it somewhat uncomfortable/disillusioning though. I can assure you that the 600+ references used as evidence throughout the book were not fabricated — you’re quite welcome to check for yourself.
Meanwhile I offered you a nice free shot at me by showing where I’ve fabricated the evidence used in my public handout booklet. As noted before, specific substantive criticisms are always welcome.
So David, you’ve mentioned your fondness for the Fayetteville Flyer. I take it you live in Fayetteville then and have commented frequently on various Flyer topics over the years as you “take the opportunity to use a public forum as seriously as (you) do” ? How about sharing a few of those old threads with us — it would be nice to see what other areas you’ve contributed to. And I’m sure that as someone who takes these discussions so seriously you’ve certainly looked beyond Fayetteville at the wider world… would you share some examples of your past efforts there?
- MJM
I sure wish all you guys taking Koch money would tell me how to get in on that.
Just a note on my comment: it was in two parts, but the first part included four website links for reference and is being held for moderation at the moment.
- MJM
David, you say, “bar employees can change employment within the industry to bars at restaurants” but Antismokers tell us constantly that bar employees can never leave their jobs to find another in a place without smoking. Surely in the post-ban market when even more of them would be scrambling than usual the impossible job switch would then become even more impossible.
Of course if it wasn’t that hard for them to switch jobs in the first place then there’d be no need for the bans since the relatively few bar employees who’d want to be “protected” could just switch.
Which is it David?
And people may consume the same amount of drink, but they do it more at home. You’ve seen Pam’s figures on home/bar liquor sales, and the situation over in the UK was so extreme that the gvt couldn’t deny it and came out with the asinine statement that the reason pubs were down after the ban was simply because, for some totally unconnected, unstated, and un known reason “people have just decided they prefer to drink at home more now.”
The loss to the state from Keno is actually *quite* relevant since most Keno is in bar settings and the reason for the Keno losses is NOT simply because suddenly “people have just decided they prefer not to play Keno now” — it’s because they’re not going to the bars.
If you’re unhappy with my use of statewide loss numbers and prefer something more concrete, just go to http://smokersclubinc.com and click on “Ban Losses” in the left hand column. You’ll find close to a thousand discrete and concrete examples to enjoy.
Re the 5,000 pubs: the UK was supplied with exactly the RIGHT numberof pubs: until the smoking ban destroyed their business and 5,000 of them closed. If the ban stays in effect then a few thousand more will likely close and the situation will stabilize with a poorer, and more poorly functioning, society.
Re pain and suffering. Your argument sounds like saying “Don’t worry about the bombing of these few thousand people over here. Look around at the way the world is. Tens of thousands more are suffering from other stuff.
And finally, you totally ignored every single reference I supplied you in my post, so I guess I can assume you were unable to come up with a single valid substantive criticism of ANY of it… not surprising. Nor did you have any response to my extensive post beneath it concerning nicotine levels, Douglas, product placements OR yourself as someone supposedly living in Fayetteville with no outside interest in this subject.
I think you’ve got quite a laundry list to attend to good sir.
- MJM
i think you might look into the locations of said 5000+ pubs in britain…i know in ireland many pubs have closed recently, but the majority of these have been rural pubs and the main reasons behind it were tougher enforcements of drink-driving laws…
…thinks that one apparent strategy is to bore people to death.
RE “Which is it David?”
Although some might, I’ve not said that bar employees can’t find another job– it’s a bad argument. However, a bar is going to have employees, and they shouldn’t be exposed to tobacco smoke, willing or not. I might be willing to ride in a car with a drunk driver, but that doesn’t mean that the law should accommodate my foolhardiness.
RE “Surely in the post-ban market…the job switch would then become even more impossible.”
Again, I’ve not said that bar employees can’t find another job. Studies indicate that hospitality industry revenues are stable or higher after a smoking ban. That would seem to indicate that, as I said before, about the same number of customers are consuming about the same amount of food and drink, presumably served by about the same number of people. If bars are closing and revenue remains at least stable, then apparently more people are going to the places that don’t close, which apparently hire more people to serve them. The migration of customers is presumably caused by the smoking ban, so the availability of alternative job venues in effect requires the ban.
RE the pubs
Ah. Your original post mentioned “5,000+ excess pubs”. I take it you meant “in excess of 5,000 pubs”. I’ve been to England, Scotland and Wales, and it is easy to believe that there could be 5,000 excess pubs.
RE “Re pain and suffering. Your argument…”
Now you’re comparing business with bombing, and I’m really curious about your selective ignoring. Your failure to answer my two questions is further evidence that they are good questions.
RE “The loss to the state from Keno is actually *quite* relevant…”
Bars are losing money. We’ve already talked about that separately; don’t try to make it look like the bars are losing twice. You’re effectively claiming that the bars are losing the state’s money as well as their own.
RE “And finally, you totally ignored every single reference…”
I haven’t ignored them; I just haven’t read them. I haven’t yet seen the need, but I’ll get to them.
RE “I think you’ve got quite a laundry list to attend to good sir.”
At least I won’t have a lot of dry-cleaning to do after visiting all those “smokers’ rights” websites. I might have to pressure-wash my monitor, though.
@Matt Petty, regarding the smoking ban in Fayetteville, I still vote in ward 2, you just lost my vote, way to be a tool. @Mark Kinion good statement “….belief that education, not legislation, was the key to keeping people from smoking…..”
Thanks Mark, I hope to see you on the ballot again, cooler heads must prevail.
That’s what I like to see: a voter who makes his decisions on a single issue. How else could our nation have moved so far along the arc of greatness?
In order for cooler heads to prevail, cooler heads must vote.
You must be a hit at parties. Insufferable is not quite apropos.
True. My friends find me quite sufferable, especially at parties.
I like you David, you make me happy that there is someone more pompous and arrogant than I am. I thought I was the only one, until I read your comments. Keep it up! You make me feel better. ;-)
Glad I can help you with your self-esteem problems, though I do slightly regret enabling you to accept your inadequacy.
why not make it illegal to smoke anything anywhere? We can ramp up WCSO’s SWAT team budget to kick in doors and shoot people for smoking. If the smokers are going to die anyway why not accelerate the process?
oh wait, we’re talking about the “safe brown leaf”, my bad, carry on citizens, Big Tobacco loves you
I like you David. I am thinking we should have a talk show. I will change my name to Beans and we could call it Beans and Franks.
“Franks and Beans”, and I’ll consider it.
Who should be our first guest?
Re:Who Should be our first guest?
Bill’s got my vote.
I’m game, let me know when.
I think a broadcast round table discussion would be an excellent idea bringing citizens, aldermen and business owners together for civilized conversations regarding topics affecting our community…. I think I might look into that, only because I’d love to sit across from you David and duke it out. I’ll keep you posted.
Ryan Mallett and Abel Tomlinson, with musical guest Opal Fly.
Interesting selections. Being pompous, arrogant, antisocial, not quite insufferable, opinionated, unsympathetic, aloof, unproductive, and all that, I am understandably out of touch with hoi polloi. Please clarify, then: do we have a target audience, or is this lineup a scattershot?
We’ll get some local buzz (perhaps literally in Mallett’s case), and this panel brings the crazy so hard, we’ll look like voices of reason by default.
What!? Look like a voice of reason and ruin my cred? Gee– I dunno, Beav…
Robert Boyd from 5NEWS.
he is intriguing and manly.
The smoking ban in in Ohio started on Dec 7th ironic it started on the aniversary of an attack upon America. The ban in Pa even though has over 2796 exemptions started on 11 Sep another aniversary of a attack upon America.
The question of protecting musicians and DJs at my American Legion was pretty simple. We before the ban usually had about 150 attend the Saturday night dances. With the the ban in force we had only 17 show up! Along with losing over $5,000 the first month of the ban the musicians and DJs were never employed by us again.
Hire better bands, maybe? If you can’t find musicians or DJs who can get smokers to climb out of their addictions long enough to go to a dance or listen to music for a while in a non-smoking venue, then surely it is the musicians’ fault.
Or maybe Legionnaires aren’t interesting enough to each other to draw smokers out of their homes. Maybe they’ve heard it all before– many times. Could you learn new stories to tell each other?
Either way, I don’t think that the public health should be sacrificed just to accommodate the disinclination to social interaction that many smokers are apparently unable to overcome.
Dang David now your blaming the muscians and the DJs as not being good enough? Blame everything and and anything but the root cause which is the smoking ban.
See the bands, DJs the post were doing just fine till your kind came along. We the vets fought those that sought social control of the masses. To bad it is a never ending battle.
The public health issue is a flat out lie,you know and I know it. In Ohio public records request acquired from the ODH shows a money trail into the hands of those that supported the bans.
When Susan Jagers lobbyist employee tried to take $190,000,000.00 from the control of the State of Ohio it showed the arrogance your organization represents. When I see the American Cancer Society openly say they created the Action Network too protect their non profit status and still fail to report $4,000,000.00 in lobbying to the IRS makes my blood boil!
Shoes payroll are you on David?
Equating a drug habit with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 is pretty offensive.
Wrong it is about freedom! If I want to open a coffee shop and say it is for smokers only then you have no more right to complain than a nun in a nudist camp! Freedom is composed of rights where all is balanced by tolorance not intolerance. Will selective breeding by dna be the next on your agenda, gun control, fire places, campfires where does it end before someone says NO!
Billy–
RE “Dang David now your blaming the muscians and the DJs as not being good enough?”
No, nor am I blaming an uncharismatic nature of Legionnaires. (See second paragraph.) I am blaming the smokers. (See third paragraph.) As far as I know, Ohio didn’t ban adults’ going to American Legion clubs. Does sarcasm elude you entirely?
RE “The public health issue is a flat out lie,you know and I know it.”
Neither of us knows any such thing; you believe it, and I know better. Even if there is corruption in some instances of establishing smoking bans, that does not invalidate the underlying science upon which the public health issue of smoking is based.
RE “When Susan Jagers lobbyist employee tried to take $190,000,000.00 from the control of the State of Ohio it showed the arrogance your organization represents.”
Even if your perception of whatever happened is anywhere near correct, it is irrelevant. This is Fayetteville, Arkansas, and we’re talking about a local ban in which the potential for diverted cash are not worth the extortion. Further, I am not a member of an organization having anything to do with smoking or not smoking. My arrogance is singular.
RE “Shoes payroll are you on David?”
Oh! If only I could get a sweet Nike endorsement deal– I might even wear the things. However, i am on no payroll– shoes or otherwise.
Is Pam a friend of yours?
Pretty sure the only people on payrolls here are Koch-supported.
Sorry about being MIA a bit… other fires to put out elsewhere.
Innarested, you wrote, “Equating a drug habit with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 is pretty offensive.” Yep: a number of Free Choice folks attacked the Antismokers when they took out those newspaper ads picturing the Twin Towers as burning cigarettes. Didn’t matter much to them though: when you’ve got control of the primary microhone you know that after-the-fact critiques of your propaganda only add to its visibility.
David, you a friend of Rollo’s? I believe I’d posed well over a half dozen, maybe close to a dozen questions readings, and points for you to respond to, while meanwhile you claim there are “two questions” I have not responded to. How about this: You post one of yours here, and then I’ll post one of mine: we’ll each respond to the other until we’ve reached some level of satisfaction and then we’ll move on to the next. Sound fair? And we’ll do it at the end of the page rather than within subthreads so people don’t have to jump up and down and back and forth to be sure they haven’t forgotten a discussion halfway through it.
David, Re smokers being to blame for not going to places where they’ll be thrown out if they do what they had done there happily with their friends for years and generations, you might want to read a near namesake’s comments: Frank Davis’s blog in the UK. See:
http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/fires-in-the-hills/#respond
Meanwhile David, although you’ve evidently had time to post prolifically, you seem to have had no time in the last three days or so to read and offer any specific substantive criticisms of anything in the links I supplied you.
- MJM
RE: “Sorry about being MIA a bit… other fires to put out elsewhere.”
Probably caused by unattended cigarettes.
I believe my answers so far have been adequate counter to your arguments. However:
RE your book:
So? If your site is an accurate representation of your book, then I guess you put enough stuff together to put between covers and call a book. And Amazon sells it. Next!
RE Lie #2.
Did I ever mention MTV? Next!
RE the Klein study:
I partially addressed your “bait and switch” accusation above. I will add that since I never claimed that there was no economic harm to bars, and since I consistently refer to the hospitality industry, there is no “bait and switch”. I did not promise one thing and deliver another. Requiring that businesses not be harmed by government action taken in the public interest is unrealistic. How many businesses were ruined by the creation of the interstate highway system? How many years have you devoted to protesting the losses of mom-and-pop motels and cafes all over the country? Next!
RE ban loss table
So? These business declines are directly due to smokers’ inadequate interest in food, drink and society. Just like all those long-lost motels and cafes: people could have chosen to get off the interstate and take a local highway loop, but it was not to be. Next!
RE your “Lies” booklet
I find that at least as easy to dismiss as you do decades of peer-reviewed scientific research, and even easier to dismiss than I found the Tony Alamo junk mail I used to get. Next!
RE my near namesake’s blog post:
And I quote: “But we all hated the new pub environment. It wasn’t any fun any more. It wasn’t any pleasure.” Spoken like a true addict. The food, drink and pool were still there.
Did I omit any of your sources?
RE “…read and offer any specific substantive criticisms of anything in the links I supplied you.”
Substantive criticism requires substance to criticize. I am therefore unable to gratify you in this respect.
Perhaps you will be less irked by my dismissing your sources than by my ignoring them, and you can now answer the questions I asked above, in order to help me understand you better.
Thank you.
And David, you wrote, “Or maybe Legionnaires aren’t interesting enough to each other to draw smokers out of their homes. Maybe they’ve heard it all before– many times. Could you learn new stories to tell each other?”
I’ll pass your observation to a VFW post commander to see if he has any comment to add.
- MJM
Before you tattle on me, reread the post you quoted, then read the first paragraph of my subsequent post to Billy. Then proceed, if you must. I personally do not find Legionnaires boring. It doesn’t take me long to tire of a group of barbershop quartet enthusiasts, however.