Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
If the state isn't willing, localities are.
If the state isn't willing, localities are.
"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
wage."
http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
out. Who's doing the funding?
"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
wage."
http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
out. Who's doing the funding?
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
On 02 Jul 2008 18:16:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
>said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
>wage."
>
> http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
>out. Who's doing the funding?
Antismokers are no longer well funded. More importantly, they are no longer skilled
professionals. They are a bunch of amateur do-gooders.
I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other. Amateurs do that,
professionals don't.
Sheahan is correct when he says:
"When people ask, 'Why are you fighting this?' it's because it's not good for the tavern
business. There's not any example out there of states that have gone smoke-free where the
tavern business has been able to maintain its existing sales. In states that have a
statewide smoking ban, the tavern business suffers anywhere from a 10-percent to
30-percent loss in sales."
Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic studies, as they did
with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or accountants. It's
hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians) trying to write
economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject population, so they
include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago. Another trick is
leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not banned. Then they
point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while ignoring the fact
that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population increase or inflation.
If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
On 02 Jul 2008 18:16:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
>said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
>wage."
>
> http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
>out. Who's doing the funding?
Antismokers are no longer well funded. More importantly, they are no longer skilled
professionals. They are a bunch of amateur do-gooders.
I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other. Amateurs do that,
professionals don't.
Sheahan is correct when he says:
"When people ask, 'Why are you fighting this?' it's because it's not good for the tavern
business. There's not any example out there of states that have gone smoke-free where the
tavern business has been able to maintain its existing sales. In states that have a
statewide smoking ban, the tavern business suffers anywhere from a 10-percent to
30-percent loss in sales."
Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic studies, as they did
with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or accountants. It's
hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians) trying to write
economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject population, so they
include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago. Another trick is
leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not banned. Then they
point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while ignoring the fact
that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population increase or inflation.
If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
In article <9o4o64dbo69mo93u04pj6nheu8viilreda@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 02 Jul 2008 18:16:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
>>said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
>>wage."
>>
>> http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
>>out. Who's doing the funding?
>
>Antismokers are no longer well funded. More importantly, they are no
>longer skilled
>professionals. They are a bunch of amateur do-gooders.
So that tavern league is misinformed?
>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
>Amateurs do that,
>professionals don't.
>
>Sheahan is correct when he says:
>
>"When people ask, 'Why are you fighting this?' it's because it's not
>good for the tavern
>business. There's not any example out there of states that have gone
>smoke-free where the
>tavern business has been able to maintain its existing sales. In states
>that have a
>statewide smoking ban, the tavern business suffers anywhere from a 10-percent to
>30-percent loss in sales."
He's repeating tobacco industry lies.
>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>
>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>studies, as they did
>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>accountants. It's
>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>trying to write
>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
The lie has been exposed.
>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>population, so they
>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>Another trick is
>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>banned. Then they
>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>ignoring the fact
>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>increase or inflation.
>
>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
California' experience and all the states since then say they
are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
In article <9o4o64dbo69mo93u04pj6nheu8viilreda@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 02 Jul 2008 18:16:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
>>said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
>>wage."
>>
>> http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
>>out. Who's doing the funding?
>
>Antismokers are no longer well funded. More importantly, they are no
>longer skilled
>professionals. They are a bunch of amateur do-gooders.
So that tavern league is misinformed?
>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
>Amateurs do that,
>professionals don't.
>
>Sheahan is correct when he says:
>
>"When people ask, 'Why are you fighting this?' it's because it's not
>good for the tavern
>business. There's not any example out there of states that have gone
>smoke-free where the
>tavern business has been able to maintain its existing sales. In states
>that have a
>statewide smoking ban, the tavern business suffers anywhere from a 10-percent to
>30-percent loss in sales."
He's repeating tobacco industry lies.
>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>
>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>studies, as they did
>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>accountants. It's
>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>trying to write
>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
The lie has been exposed.
>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>population, so they
>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>Another trick is
>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>banned. Then they
>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>ignoring the fact
>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>increase or inflation.
>
>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
California' experience and all the states since then say they
are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
On 03 Jul 2008 01:49:51 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <9o4o64dbo69mo93u04pj6nheu8viilreda@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 02 Jul 2008 18:16:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
>>>said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
>>>wage."
>>>
>>> http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
>>>out. Who's doing the funding?
>>
>>Antismokers are no longer well funded. More importantly, they are no
>>longer skilled
>>professionals. They are a bunch of amateur do-gooders.
>
>So that tavern league is misinformed?
On that point, yes. He's guessing. He doesn't know how much money they have.
>>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
>
>Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
Be patient.
>>Amateurs do that,
>>professionals don't.
>>
>>Sheahan is correct when he says:
>>
>>"When people ask, 'Why are you fighting this?' it's because it's not
>>good for the tavern
>>business. There's not any example out there of states that have gone
>>smoke-free where the
>>tavern business has been able to maintain its existing sales. In states
>>that have a
>>statewide smoking ban, the tavern business suffers anywhere from a 10-percent to
>>30-percent loss in sales."
>
>He's repeating tobacco industry lies.
I should start a list of every organization and thing you claim is in bed with the tobacco
industry.
.. US Census Bureau
.. Congressional Research Service
.. Airline Flight Attendants union
.. reality
>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>
>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>studies, as they did
>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>accountants. It's
>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>trying to write
>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>
>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>The lie has been exposed.
California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and restaurants.
>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>population, so they
>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>Another trick is
>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>banned. Then they
>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>ignoring the fact
>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>increase or inflation.
>>
>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>
>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>
>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>
>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar employment stayed the
same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
California
1998 2006 %change
Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
Employees 420,098 532,601 27
Industry code 7224 (bars)
Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
Employees 29,244 29,270 0
Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars. Retail grew at a
sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than the accomodation
industry.
The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
Wisconsin
1998 2006 %change
Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
Employees 309,194 321,788 4
Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
Employees 191,531 225,445 18
Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
Employees 82,625 91,355 11
Industry code 7224 (bars)
Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
Employees 13,372 18,013 35
http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
On 03 Jul 2008 01:49:51 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <9o4o64dbo69mo93u04pj6nheu8viilreda@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 02 Jul 2008 18:16:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
>>>said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
>>>wage."
>>>
>>> http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
>>>out. Who's doing the funding?
>>
>>Antismokers are no longer well funded. More importantly, they are no
>>longer skilled
>>professionals. They are a bunch of amateur do-gooders.
>
>So that tavern league is misinformed?
On that point, yes. He's guessing. He doesn't know how much money they have.
>>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
>
>Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
Be patient.
>>Amateurs do that,
>>professionals don't.
>>
>>Sheahan is correct when he says:
>>
>>"When people ask, 'Why are you fighting this?' it's because it's not
>>good for the tavern
>>business. There's not any example out there of states that have gone
>>smoke-free where the
>>tavern business has been able to maintain its existing sales. In states
>>that have a
>>statewide smoking ban, the tavern business suffers anywhere from a 10-percent to
>>30-percent loss in sales."
>
>He's repeating tobacco industry lies.
I should start a list of every organization and thing you claim is in bed with the tobacco
industry.
.. US Census Bureau
.. Congressional Research Service
.. Airline Flight Attendants union
.. reality
>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>
>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>studies, as they did
>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>accountants. It's
>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>trying to write
>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>
>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>The lie has been exposed.
California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and restaurants.
>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>population, so they
>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>Another trick is
>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>banned. Then they
>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>ignoring the fact
>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>increase or inflation.
>>
>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>
>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>
>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>
>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar employment stayed the
same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
California
1998 2006 %change
Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
Employees 420,098 532,601 27
Industry code 7224 (bars)
Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
Employees 29,244 29,270 0
Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars. Retail grew at a
sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than the accomodation
industry.
The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
Wisconsin
1998 2006 %change
Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
Employees 309,194 321,788 4
Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
Employees 191,531 225,445 18
Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
Employees 82,625 91,355 11
Industry code 7224 (bars)
Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
Employees 13,372 18,013 35
http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
In article <onio64lfpepak02r4l8fm9uarm5n6qbte5@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2008 01:49:51 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <9o4o64dbo69mo93u04pj6nheu8viilreda@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 02 Jul 2008 18:16:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
>>>>said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
>>>>wage."
>>>>
>>>> http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
>>>>out. Who's doing the funding?
>>>
>>>Antismokers are no longer well funded. More importantly, they are no
>>>longer skilled
>>>professionals. They are a bunch of amateur do-gooders.
>>
>>So that tavern league is misinformed?
>
>On that point, yes. He's guessing. He doesn't know how much money they have.
Maybe it isn't money. Maybe it's just the support of nonsmokers
who don't want tobacco poisons in the air.
>>>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
>>
>>Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
>
>Be patient.
It's been 10 years since California's ban. Do I wait
another 10 years?
>>>Amateurs do that,
>>>professionals don't.
>>>
>>>Sheahan is correct when he says:
>>>
>>>"When people ask, 'Why are you fighting this?' it's because it's not
>>>good for the tavern
>>>business. There's not any example out there of states that have gone
>>>smoke-free where the
>>>tavern business has been able to maintain its existing sales. In states
>>>that have a
>>>statewide smoking ban, the tavern business suffers anywhere from a
>10-percent to
>>>30-percent loss in sales."
>>
>>He's repeating tobacco industry lies.
>
>I should start a list of every organization and thing you claim is in
>bed with the tobacco
>industry.
>
>.. US Census Bureau
>.. Congressional Research Service
>.. Airline Flight Attendants union
>.. reality
>
>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>
>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>studies, as they did
>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>accountants. It's
>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>trying to write
>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>
>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>The lie has been exposed.
>
>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>restaurants.
Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>population, so they
>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>Another trick is
>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>banned. Then they
>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>ignoring the fact
>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>increase or inflation.
>>>
>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>>
>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>
>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>
>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>
>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>employment stayed the
>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>
>
>California
> 1998 2006 %change
>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>
>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>
>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>
>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>
>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>Retail grew at a
>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>the accomodation
>industry.
>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>
>Wisconsin
> 1998 2006 %change
>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>
>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>
>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>
>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>
> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
Why?
In article <onio64lfpepak02r4l8fm9uarm5n6qbte5@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2008 01:49:51 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <9o4o64dbo69mo93u04pj6nheu8viilreda@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 02 Jul 2008 18:16:24 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"No doubt the opposition is very motivated and very well-funded," he
>>>>said. "I understand it's a fight and it's a fight we'll continue to
>>>>wage."
>>>>
>>>> http :// www .madison,com /tct/news/stories/294161
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Well funded? By whom? Robert says the main contributor pulled
>>>>out. Who's doing the funding?
>>>
>>>Antismokers are no longer well funded. More importantly, they are no
>>>longer skilled
>>>professionals. They are a bunch of amateur do-gooders.
>>
>>So that tavern league is misinformed?
>
>On that point, yes. He's guessing. He doesn't know how much money they have.
Maybe it isn't money. Maybe it's just the support of nonsmokers
who don't want tobacco poisons in the air.
>>>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
>>
>>Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
>
>Be patient.
It's been 10 years since California's ban. Do I wait
another 10 years?
>>>Amateurs do that,
>>>professionals don't.
>>>
>>>Sheahan is correct when he says:
>>>
>>>"When people ask, 'Why are you fighting this?' it's because it's not
>>>good for the tavern
>>>business. There's not any example out there of states that have gone
>>>smoke-free where the
>>>tavern business has been able to maintain its existing sales. In states
>>>that have a
>>>statewide smoking ban, the tavern business suffers anywhere from a
>10-percent to
>>>30-percent loss in sales."
>>
>>He's repeating tobacco industry lies.
>
>I should start a list of every organization and thing you claim is in
>bed with the tobacco
>industry.
>
>.. US Census Bureau
>.. Congressional Research Service
>.. Airline Flight Attendants union
>.. reality
>
>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>
>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>studies, as they did
>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>accountants. It's
>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>trying to write
>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>
>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>The lie has been exposed.
>
>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>restaurants.
Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>population, so they
>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>Another trick is
>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>banned. Then they
>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>ignoring the fact
>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>increase or inflation.
>>>
>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>>
>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>
>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>
>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>
>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>employment stayed the
>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>
>
>California
> 1998 2006 %change
>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>
>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>
>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>
>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>
>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>Retail grew at a
>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>the accomodation
>industry.
>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>
>Wisconsin
> 1998 2006 %change
>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>
>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>
>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>
>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>
> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
Why?
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
On 03 Jul 2008 16:21:22 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <onio64lfpepak02r4l8fm9uarm5n6qbte5@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
>>>
>>>Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
>>
>>Be patient.
>
>It's been 10 years since California's ban. Do I wait
>another 10 years?
It has only been one year since pharma stopped its campaign against smokers. Some people
don't yet know they left.
>>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>>studies, as they did
>>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>>accountants. It's
>>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>>trying to write
>>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>>
>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>
>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>restaurants.
>
>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and insurance have lots of
clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters do.
>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>population, so they
>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>>Another trick is
>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>
>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>>>
>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>
>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>
>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>
>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>employment stayed the
>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>
>>
>>California
>> 1998 2006 %change
>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>
>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>
>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>
>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>
>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>Retail grew at a
>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>the accomodation
>>industry.
>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>
>>Wisconsin
>> 1998 2006 %change
>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>
>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>
>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>
>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>
>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>
>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>
>Why?
Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
On 03 Jul 2008 16:21:22 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <onio64lfpepak02r4l8fm9uarm5n6qbte5@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
>>>
>>>Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
>>
>>Be patient.
>
>It's been 10 years since California's ban. Do I wait
>another 10 years?
It has only been one year since pharma stopped its campaign against smokers. Some people
don't yet know they left.
>>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>>studies, as they did
>>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>>accountants. It's
>>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>>trying to write
>>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>>
>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>
>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>restaurants.
>
>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and insurance have lots of
clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters do.
>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>population, so they
>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>>Another trick is
>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>
>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>>>
>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>
>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>
>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>
>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>employment stayed the
>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>
>>
>>California
>> 1998 2006 %change
>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>
>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>
>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>
>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>
>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>Retail grew at a
>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>the accomodation
>>industry.
>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>
>>Wisconsin
>> 1998 2006 %change
>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>
>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>
>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>
>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>
>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>
>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>
>Why?
Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
In article <rk2q649rst39qic96jbk8iv4jk36nmrcm7@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2008 16:21:22 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <onio64lfpepak02r4l8fm9uarm5n6qbte5@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>>>>>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
>>>>
>>>>Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
>>>
>>>Be patient.
>>
>>It's been 10 years since California's ban. Do I wait
>>another 10 years?
>
>It has only been one year since pharma stopped its campaign against smokers. Some people
>don't yet know they left.
Yet the bans still pass.
So what do we have? Another year? 5 years? 10 years? 20? 30?
>>>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>>>studies, as they did
>>>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>>>accountants. It's
>>>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>>>trying to write
>>>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>>>
>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>
>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>restaurants.
>>
>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>
>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and insurance have lots of
>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters do.
But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>
>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>>>>
>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>
>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>
>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>employment stayed the
>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>
>>>
>>>California
>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>
>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>
>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>
>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>
>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>Retail grew at a
>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>the accomodation
>>>industry.
>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>
>>>Wisconsin
>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>
>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>
>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>
>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>
>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>
>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
if it means losing money. Look at cigarette prohibition
in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
In article <rk2q649rst39qic96jbk8iv4jk36nmrcm7@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2008 16:21:22 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <onio64lfpepak02r4l8fm9uarm5n6qbte5@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>>>>>I'll be proven right when they start squabbling with each other.
>>>>
>>>>Shouldn't the squabbling have started by now?
>>>
>>>Be patient.
>>
>>It's been 10 years since California's ban. Do I wait
>>another 10 years?
>
>It has only been one year since pharma stopped its campaign against smokers. Some people
>don't yet know they left.
Yet the bans still pass.
So what do we have? Another year? 5 years? 10 years? 20? 30?
>>>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>>>studies, as they did
>>>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>>>accountants. It's
>>>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>>>trying to write
>>>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>>>
>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>
>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>restaurants.
>>
>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>
>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and insurance have lots of
>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters do.
But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>
>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>>>>
>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>
>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>
>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>employment stayed the
>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>
>>>
>>>California
>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>
>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>
>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>
>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>
>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>Retail grew at a
>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>the accomodation
>>>industry.
>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>
>>>Wisconsin
>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>
>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>
>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>
>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>
>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>
>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
if it means losing money. Look at cigarette prohibition
in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
On 03 Jul 2008 18:39:00 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <rk2q649rst39qic96jbk8iv4jk36nmrcm7@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>>>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>>>>studies, as they did
>>>>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>>>>accountants. It's
>>>>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>>>>trying to write
>>>>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>>
>>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>>restaurants.
>>>
>>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>
>>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and insurance have lots of
>>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters do.
>
>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to effete trendies and
tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12 .. would you like
foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to real bars is apples
and oranges.
>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>>>>>
>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>
>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>
>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>California
>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>
>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>>the accomodation
>>>>industry.
>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>
>>>>Wisconsin
>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>
>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>
>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>
>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>if it means losing money.
Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are your lying press
releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26% since 1998.
Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
> Look at cigarette prohibition
>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
I followed the money and it led to pharma.
In 2002, 10 pharmaceutical companies made more profit than the other 490 companies in the
Fortune 500 COMBINED. The US spends twice as much per capita on health care compared to
EVERY other country. We spend 16% of GDP, $7,000 for every man, woman and child.
The US pharmaceutical industry is ten times the size of the US tobacco industry. Pharma is
expected to more than double in sales and profit between now and 2020. A demographic
bubble of Baby Boomers is about to hit their prime drug consuming years. Pharma wants them
to live as long as possible.
On 03 Jul 2008 18:39:00 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <rk2q649rst39qic96jbk8iv4jk36nmrcm7@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>>>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>>>>studies, as they did
>>>>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>>>>accountants. It's
>>>>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>>>>trying to write
>>>>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>>
>>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>>restaurants.
>>>
>>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>
>>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and insurance have lots of
>>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters do.
>
>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to effete trendies and
tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12 .. would you like
foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to real bars is apples
and oranges.
>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are liars.
>>>>>
>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>
>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>
>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>California
>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>
>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>>the accomodation
>>>>industry.
>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>
>>>>Wisconsin
>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>
>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>
>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>
>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>
>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>if it means losing money.
Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are your lying press
releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26% since 1998.
Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
> Look at cigarette prohibition
>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
I followed the money and it led to pharma.
In 2002, 10 pharmaceutical companies made more profit than the other 490 companies in the
Fortune 500 COMBINED. The US spends twice as much per capita on health care compared to
EVERY other country. We spend 16% of GDP, $7,000 for every man, woman and child.
The US pharmaceutical industry is ten times the size of the US tobacco industry. Pharma is
expected to more than double in sales and profit between now and 2020. A demographic
bubble of Baby Boomers is about to hit their prime drug consuming years. Pharma wants them
to live as long as possible.
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 04 Jul 2008, 05:11
-- deleted messages --
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
>>>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>>>
>>>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>>>restaurants.
>>>>
>>>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>>
>>>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and
>>>insurance have lots of
>>>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters
>>>do.
>>
>>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
>
> Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
>
>>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>
> My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to effete
> trendies and
> tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12 ..
> would you like
> foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to real
> bars is apples
> and oranges.
Hmm. Odd that when there is data that you can somehow interpret to support
your position you are right on top of it, but otherwise you "guess". In this
case I suspect you know more than you care to let on.
So New York bars find ways to adjust to the market to ensure their survival.
Somehow you think bars in Wisconsin or California couldn't find ways to
adjust to their markets? If one possible emerging market is "yuppies" and
you decline to adjust your menu because you personally don't care for
"yuppies" does that seem like a sound business decision?
>
>>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years
>>>>>>>ago.
>>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt,
>>>>>>>while
>>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are
>>>>>>>liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>California
>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>>
>>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>>>the accomodation
>>>>>industry.
>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wisconsin
>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>>
>>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>>
>>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>>
>>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>>if it means losing money.
>
> Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are your
> lying press
> releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26%
> since 1998.
>
> Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
>
>> Look at cigarette prohibition
>>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
>
> I followed the money and it led to pharma.
>
> In 2002, 10 pharmaceutical companies made more profit than the other 490
> companies in the
> Fortune 500 COMBINED.
So this is proof of what? Success in business? Thought that was worshipped
in your part of the world.
> The US spends twice as much per capita on health care compared to
> EVERY other country. We spend 16% of GDP, $7,000 for every man, woman and
> child.
Again this is proof of nothing other than the inherent ineffectiveness of
for profit health care.
Countries with proper health care systems are also campaigning against
public smoking. You think they all bought the con from big pharma as well?
>
> The US pharmaceutical industry is ten times the size of the US tobacco
> industry. Pharma is
> expected to more than double in sales and profit between now and 2020. A
> demographic
> bubble of Baby Boomers is about to hit their prime drug consuming years.
> Pharma wants them
> to live as long as possible.
I want me to live as long as possible as well. Maybe I'm just funny that
way. Oddly enough, I enjoy my healthy lifestyle. I'm trying hard to think
what it is I'm sacrificing to achieve it.
>
>
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
>>>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>>>
>>>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>>>restaurants.
>>>>
>>>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>>
>>>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and
>>>insurance have lots of
>>>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters
>>>do.
>>
>>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
>
> Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
>
>>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>
> My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to effete
> trendies and
> tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12 ..
> would you like
> foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to real
> bars is apples
> and oranges.
Hmm. Odd that when there is data that you can somehow interpret to support
your position you are right on top of it, but otherwise you "guess". In this
case I suspect you know more than you care to let on.
So New York bars find ways to adjust to the market to ensure their survival.
Somehow you think bars in Wisconsin or California couldn't find ways to
adjust to their markets? If one possible emerging market is "yuppies" and
you decline to adjust your menu because you personally don't care for
"yuppies" does that seem like a sound business decision?
>
>>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years
>>>>>>>ago.
>>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt,
>>>>>>>while
>>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are
>>>>>>>liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>California
>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>>
>>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>>>the accomodation
>>>>>industry.
>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wisconsin
>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>>
>>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>>
>>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>>
>>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>>if it means losing money.
>
> Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are your
> lying press
> releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26%
> since 1998.
>
> Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
>
>> Look at cigarette prohibition
>>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
>
> I followed the money and it led to pharma.
>
> In 2002, 10 pharmaceutical companies made more profit than the other 490
> companies in the
> Fortune 500 COMBINED.
So this is proof of what? Success in business? Thought that was worshipped
in your part of the world.
> The US spends twice as much per capita on health care compared to
> EVERY other country. We spend 16% of GDP, $7,000 for every man, woman and
> child.
Again this is proof of nothing other than the inherent ineffectiveness of
for profit health care.
Countries with proper health care systems are also campaigning against
public smoking. You think they all bought the con from big pharma as well?
>
> The US pharmaceutical industry is ten times the size of the US tobacco
> industry. Pharma is
> expected to more than double in sales and profit between now and 2020. A
> demographic
> bubble of Baby Boomers is about to hit their prime drug consuming years.
> Pharma wants them
> to live as long as possible.
I want me to live as long as possible as well. Maybe I'm just funny that
way. Oddly enough, I enjoy my healthy lifestyle. I'm trying hard to think
what it is I'm sacrificing to achieve it.
>
>
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:12:12 GMT, "Norm" <Normgrant999@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
>
>>>>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>>>>restaurants.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>>>
>>>>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and
>>>>insurance have lots of
>>>>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters
>>>>do.
>>>
>>>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
>>
>> Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
>>
>>>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>>
>> My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to effete
>> trendies and
>> tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12 ..
>> would you like
>> foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to real
>> bars is apples
>> and oranges.
>
>
>Hmm. Odd that when there is data that you can somehow interpret to support
>your position you are right on top of it, but otherwise you "guess". In this
>case I suspect you know more than you care to let on.
Most US bars provide a place for LOCALS to socialize, analogous to British pubs. Bars in
urban business districts, like southern Manhattan, serve a different function, therefore
are not a good measure of smoking ban effect. Bars in Brooklyn and Queens, where people
live, are a fair measure. Queens, with a population of 2.2 million, is bigger than most
cities and a few states.
Queens NY
2003 2006 %change
Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
Establishments 6,489 6,723 4
Employees 52,555 53,710 2
Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
Establishments 3,283 3,532 8
Employees 29,392 31,365 7
Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
Establishments 1,189 1,299 9
Employees 8,739 9,187 5
Industry code 7224 (bars)
Establishments 361 316 -12
Employees 1,092 897 -18
Bars declined 25%, relative to the accomodations industry.
The ratio of bars to restaurants declined from 30% to 24% (the national ratio is 22%).
Was this a continuation of a downtrend unrelated to smoking?
Let's look at the trend before smoking was banned:
1998 2002
Industry code 7224 (bars)
Establishments 325 356 10
Employees 795 1,032 30
The bar industry in Queens was expanding before the ban, reversed direction in 2003 and
has been shrinking since.
>So New York bars find ways to adjust to the market to ensure their survival.
>Somehow you think bars in Wisconsin or California couldn't find ways to
>adjust to their markets? If one possible emerging market is "yuppies" and
>you decline to adjust your menu because you personally don't care for
>"yuppies" does that seem like a sound business decision?
Yuppies have been a curse upon mankind since the early '80s. Shallowness, greed, vanity
and wasteful spending have been around forever.
>>>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years
>>>>>>>>ago.
>>>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was
>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt,
>>>>>>>>while
>>>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are
>>>>>>>>liars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>California
>>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>>>>the accomodation
>>>>>>industry.
>>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wisconsin
>>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>>>
>>>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>>>if it means losing money.
>>
>> Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are your
>> lying press
>> releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26%
>> since 1998.
>>
>> Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
>>
>>> Look at cigarette prohibition
>>>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>>>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
>>
>> I followed the money and it led to pharma.
>>
>> In 2002, 10 pharmaceutical companies made more profit than the other 490
>> companies in the
>> Fortune 500 COMBINED.
>
>So this is proof of what? Success in business? Thought that was worshipped
>in your part of the world.
It is proof the pharmaceutical industry has unrivaled economic and political power. We
will soon be spending more on health care than on government. No other industry comes
remotely close.
Think of it this way. The average family of 3.5 people IS NOW SPENDING $24,000 per year on
medical care. Picture how rich and powerful the automobile industry would be if every
family bought a new car every year.
We don't worship businesses that get caught lying. We punish them by not buying their
products. Yuppie heroine Martha Stewart lost hundreds of millions for telling a small
lie.
>> The US spends twice as much per capita on health care compared to
>> EVERY other country. We spend 16% of GDP, $7,000 for every man, woman and
>> child.
>
>
>Again this is proof of nothing other than the inherent ineffectiveness of
>for profit health care.
>Countries with proper health care systems are also campaigning against
>public smoking. You think they all bought the con from big pharma as well?
Yes, they did. The World Health Organization campaign against smoking ("framework") was
authored and financed by US and UK pharma companies. It is a prime example of imposing
Anglo culture on the rest of the world.
>> The US pharmaceutical industry is ten times the size of the US tobacco
>> industry. Pharma is
>> expected to more than double in sales and profit between now and 2020. A
>> demographic
>> bubble of Baby Boomers is about to hit their prime drug consuming years.
>> Pharma wants them
>> to live as long as possible.
>
>
>I want me to live as long as possible as well. Maybe I'm just funny that
>way. Oddly enough, I enjoy my healthy lifestyle. I'm trying hard to think
>what it is I'm sacrificing to achieve it.
I'm trying hard to think why a healthy lifestyle requires imposing it on strangers against
their will. Is your lifestyle a quasi-religion?
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:12:12 GMT, "Norm" <Normgrant999@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
>
>>>>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>>>>restaurants.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>>>
>>>>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and
>>>>insurance have lots of
>>>>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters
>>>>do.
>>>
>>>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
>>
>> Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
>>
>>>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>>
>> My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to effete
>> trendies and
>> tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12 ..
>> would you like
>> foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to real
>> bars is apples
>> and oranges.
>
>
>Hmm. Odd that when there is data that you can somehow interpret to support
>your position you are right on top of it, but otherwise you "guess". In this
>case I suspect you know more than you care to let on.
Most US bars provide a place for LOCALS to socialize, analogous to British pubs. Bars in
urban business districts, like southern Manhattan, serve a different function, therefore
are not a good measure of smoking ban effect. Bars in Brooklyn and Queens, where people
live, are a fair measure. Queens, with a population of 2.2 million, is bigger than most
cities and a few states.
Queens NY
2003 2006 %change
Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
Establishments 6,489 6,723 4
Employees 52,555 53,710 2
Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
Establishments 3,283 3,532 8
Employees 29,392 31,365 7
Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
Establishments 1,189 1,299 9
Employees 8,739 9,187 5
Industry code 7224 (bars)
Establishments 361 316 -12
Employees 1,092 897 -18
Bars declined 25%, relative to the accomodations industry.
The ratio of bars to restaurants declined from 30% to 24% (the national ratio is 22%).
Was this a continuation of a downtrend unrelated to smoking?
Let's look at the trend before smoking was banned:
1998 2002
Industry code 7224 (bars)
Establishments 325 356 10
Employees 795 1,032 30
The bar industry in Queens was expanding before the ban, reversed direction in 2003 and
has been shrinking since.
>So New York bars find ways to adjust to the market to ensure their survival.
>Somehow you think bars in Wisconsin or California couldn't find ways to
>adjust to their markets? If one possible emerging market is "yuppies" and
>you decline to adjust your menu because you personally don't care for
>"yuppies" does that seem like a sound business decision?
Yuppies have been a curse upon mankind since the early '80s. Shallowness, greed, vanity
and wasteful spending have been around forever.
>>>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years
>>>>>>>>ago.
>>>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was
>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt,
>>>>>>>>while
>>>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are
>>>>>>>>liars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>California
>>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>>>>the accomodation
>>>>>>industry.
>>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wisconsin
>>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>>>
>>>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>>>if it means losing money.
>>
>> Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are your
>> lying press
>> releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26%
>> since 1998.
>>
>> Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
>>
>>> Look at cigarette prohibition
>>>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>>>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
>>
>> I followed the money and it led to pharma.
>>
>> In 2002, 10 pharmaceutical companies made more profit than the other 490
>> companies in the
>> Fortune 500 COMBINED.
>
>So this is proof of what? Success in business? Thought that was worshipped
>in your part of the world.
It is proof the pharmaceutical industry has unrivaled economic and political power. We
will soon be spending more on health care than on government. No other industry comes
remotely close.
Think of it this way. The average family of 3.5 people IS NOW SPENDING $24,000 per year on
medical care. Picture how rich and powerful the automobile industry would be if every
family bought a new car every year.
We don't worship businesses that get caught lying. We punish them by not buying their
products. Yuppie heroine Martha Stewart lost hundreds of millions for telling a small
lie.
>> The US spends twice as much per capita on health care compared to
>> EVERY other country. We spend 16% of GDP, $7,000 for every man, woman and
>> child.
>
>
>Again this is proof of nothing other than the inherent ineffectiveness of
>for profit health care.
>Countries with proper health care systems are also campaigning against
>public smoking. You think they all bought the con from big pharma as well?
Yes, they did. The World Health Organization campaign against smoking ("framework") was
authored and financed by US and UK pharma companies. It is a prime example of imposing
Anglo culture on the rest of the world.
>> The US pharmaceutical industry is ten times the size of the US tobacco
>> industry. Pharma is
>> expected to more than double in sales and profit between now and 2020. A
>> demographic
>> bubble of Baby Boomers is about to hit their prime drug consuming years.
>> Pharma wants them
>> to live as long as possible.
>
>
>I want me to live as long as possible as well. Maybe I'm just funny that
>way. Oddly enough, I enjoy my healthy lifestyle. I'm trying hard to think
>what it is I'm sacrificing to achieve it.
I'm trying hard to think why a healthy lifestyle requires imposing it on strangers against
their will. Is your lifestyle a quasi-religion?
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
On Jul 4, 6:28 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:12:12 GMT, "Norm" <Normgrant...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Yuppies have been a curse upon mankind since the early '80s.
Wow, yet another group of Boogie People. "Big Pharma", "Anti Smoker
Illuminati"... are there more?
It must suck to be you, asswipe.
On Jul 4, 6:28 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:12:12 GMT, "Norm" <Normgrant...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Yuppies have been a curse upon mankind since the early '80s.
Wow, yet another group of Boogie People. "Big Pharma", "Anti Smoker
Illuminati"... are there more?
It must suck to be you, asswipe.
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
>>>
>>> Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
>>>
>>>>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>>>
>>> My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to
>>> effete
>>> trendies and
>>> tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12
>>> ..
>>> would you like
>>> foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to
>>> real
>>> bars is apples
>>> and oranges.
>>
>>
>>Hmm. Odd that when there is data that you can somehow interpret to support
>>your position you are right on top of it, but otherwise you "guess". In
>>this
>>case I suspect you know more than you care to let on.
>
> Most US bars provide a place for LOCALS to socialize, analogous to British
> pubs. Bars in
> urban business districts, like southern Manhattan, serve a different
> function, therefore
> are not a good measure of smoking ban effect. Bars in Brooklyn and Queens,
> where people
> live, are a fair measure. Queens, with a population of 2.2 million, is
> bigger than most
> cities and a few states.
Ah, a rationale for your cherry picking. Whatever...
>
> Queens NY
> 2003 2006 %change
> Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
> Establishments 6,489 6,723 4
> Employees 52,555 53,710 2
>
> Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
> Establishments 3,283 3,532 8
> Employees 29,392 31,365 7
>
> Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
> Establishments 1,189 1,299 9
> Employees 8,739 9,187 5
>
> Industry code 7224 (bars)
> Establishments 361 316 -12
> Employees 1,092 897 -18
>
> Bars declined 25%, relative to the accomodations industry.
> The ratio of bars to restaurants declined from 30% to 24% (the national
> ratio is 22%).
>
> Was this a continuation of a downtrend unrelated to smoking?
> Let's look at the trend before smoking was banned:
>
> 1998 2002
> Industry code 7224 (bars)
> Establishments 325 356 10
> Employees 795 1,032 30
>
> The bar industry in Queens was expanding before the ban, reversed
> direction in 2003 and
> has been shrinking since.
And absolutely nothing else happened near that time period that might have
influenced business? No stricter enforcement of Drinking/Driving laws? (MADD
claims they have saved 25,000 lives. I haven't read the fine print so I
don't know what time period they are referring to.) No increase in the price
of fuel? No increased concern over the effect of going into Iraq on the
economy? No increased preference for healthier lifestyle? Seems to me that
is about the time most of the "Beer Parlour" type of establishments in my
part of the world converted to more of a sports bar atmosphere, and placed
an increased emphasis on food service. Is it possible some or maybe even
many bars there missed the boat regarding what their clientele wanted?
>
>>So New York bars find ways to adjust to the market to ensure their
>>survival.
>>Somehow you think bars in Wisconsin or California couldn't find ways to
>>adjust to their markets? If one possible emerging market is "yuppies" and
>>you decline to adjust your menu because you personally don't care for
>>"yuppies" does that seem like a sound business decision?
>
> Yuppies have been a curse upon mankind since the early '80s. Shallowness,
> greed, vanity
> and wasteful spending have been around forever.
Yes, you've made your feelings clear before, and I don't entirely disagree,
but what about the question?
>
>>>>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years
>>>>>>>>>ago.
>>>>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking
>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt,
>>>>>>>>>while
>>>>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are
>>>>>>>>>liars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>California
>>>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster
>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>the accomodation
>>>>>>>industry.
>>>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wisconsin
>>>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>>>>
>>>>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>>>>if it means losing money.
>>>
>>> Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are
>>> your
>>> lying press
>>> releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26%
>>> since 1998.
>>>
>>> Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
>>>
>>>> Look at cigarette prohibition
>>>>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>>>>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
>>>
>>> I followed the money and it led to pharma.
>>>
>>> In 2002, 10 pharmaceutical companies made more profit than the other 490
>>> companies in the
>>> Fortune 500 COMBINED.
>>
>>So this is proof of what? Success in business? Thought that was worshipped
>>in your part of the world.
>
> It is proof the pharmaceutical industry has unrivaled economic and
> political power. We
> will soon be spending more on health care than on government. No other
> industry comes
> remotely close.
>
> Think of it this way. The average family of 3.5 people IS NOW SPENDING
> $24,000 per year on
> medical care. Picture how rich and powerful the automobile industry would
> be if every
> family bought a new car every year.
>
> We don't worship businesses that get caught lying. We punish them by not
> buying their
> products.
But you decline to hold big tobacco to the same standard. What do you
suppose is the difference there?
> Yuppie heroine Martha Stewart lost hundreds of millions for telling a
> small
> lie.
>
>>> The US spends twice as much per capita on health care compared to
>>> EVERY other country. We spend 16% of GDP, $7,000 for every man, woman
>>> and
>>> child.
>>
>>
>>Again this is proof of nothing other than the inherent ineffectiveness of
>>for profit health care.
>>Countries with proper health care systems are also campaigning against
>>public smoking. You think they all bought the con from big pharma as well?
>
> Yes, they did. The World Health Organization campaign against smoking
> ("framework") was
> authored and financed by US and UK pharma companies. It is a prime example
> of imposing
> Anglo culture on the rest of the world.
>
>>> The US pharmaceutical industry is ten times the size of the US tobacco
>>> industry. Pharma is
>>> expected to more than double in sales and profit between now and 2020. A
>>> demographic
>>> bubble of Baby Boomers is about to hit their prime drug consuming years.
>>> Pharma wants them
>>> to live as long as possible.
>>
>>
>>I want me to live as long as possible as well. Maybe I'm just funny that
>>way. Oddly enough, I enjoy my healthy lifestyle. I'm trying hard to think
>>what it is I'm sacrificing to achieve it.
>
> I'm trying hard to think why a healthy lifestyle requires imposing it on
> strangers against
> their will. Is your lifestyle a quasi-religion?
I'm not sure what would constitute a quasi-religion. Perhaps it is, but I'm
not evangelical about it, if thats what you mean.
Nobody is imposing anything on anybody against their will. You can still
smoke. You can still eat crap. You can still spend your evening watching
American Idol. You just can't force me or, more importantly, the employees
of any palce you patronise to do any of the above.
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
>>>
>>> Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
>>>
>>>>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>>>
>>> My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to
>>> effete
>>> trendies and
>>> tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12
>>> ..
>>> would you like
>>> foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to
>>> real
>>> bars is apples
>>> and oranges.
>>
>>
>>Hmm. Odd that when there is data that you can somehow interpret to support
>>your position you are right on top of it, but otherwise you "guess". In
>>this
>>case I suspect you know more than you care to let on.
>
> Most US bars provide a place for LOCALS to socialize, analogous to British
> pubs. Bars in
> urban business districts, like southern Manhattan, serve a different
> function, therefore
> are not a good measure of smoking ban effect. Bars in Brooklyn and Queens,
> where people
> live, are a fair measure. Queens, with a population of 2.2 million, is
> bigger than most
> cities and a few states.
Ah, a rationale for your cherry picking. Whatever...
>
> Queens NY
> 2003 2006 %change
> Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
> Establishments 6,489 6,723 4
> Employees 52,555 53,710 2
>
> Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
> Establishments 3,283 3,532 8
> Employees 29,392 31,365 7
>
> Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
> Establishments 1,189 1,299 9
> Employees 8,739 9,187 5
>
> Industry code 7224 (bars)
> Establishments 361 316 -12
> Employees 1,092 897 -18
>
> Bars declined 25%, relative to the accomodations industry.
> The ratio of bars to restaurants declined from 30% to 24% (the national
> ratio is 22%).
>
> Was this a continuation of a downtrend unrelated to smoking?
> Let's look at the trend before smoking was banned:
>
> 1998 2002
> Industry code 7224 (bars)
> Establishments 325 356 10
> Employees 795 1,032 30
>
> The bar industry in Queens was expanding before the ban, reversed
> direction in 2003 and
> has been shrinking since.
And absolutely nothing else happened near that time period that might have
influenced business? No stricter enforcement of Drinking/Driving laws? (MADD
claims they have saved 25,000 lives. I haven't read the fine print so I
don't know what time period they are referring to.) No increase in the price
of fuel? No increased concern over the effect of going into Iraq on the
economy? No increased preference for healthier lifestyle? Seems to me that
is about the time most of the "Beer Parlour" type of establishments in my
part of the world converted to more of a sports bar atmosphere, and placed
an increased emphasis on food service. Is it possible some or maybe even
many bars there missed the boat regarding what their clientele wanted?
>
>>So New York bars find ways to adjust to the market to ensure their
>>survival.
>>Somehow you think bars in Wisconsin or California couldn't find ways to
>>adjust to their markets? If one possible emerging market is "yuppies" and
>>you decline to adjust your menu because you personally don't care for
>>"yuppies" does that seem like a sound business decision?
>
> Yuppies have been a curse upon mankind since the early '80s. Shallowness,
> greed, vanity
> and wasteful spending have been around forever.
Yes, you've made your feelings clear before, and I don't entirely disagree,
but what about the question?
>
>>>>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years
>>>>>>>>>ago.
>>>>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking
>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt,
>>>>>>>>>while
>>>>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists' are
>>>>>>>>>liars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>California
>>>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster
>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>the accomodation
>>>>>>>industry.
>>>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wisconsin
>>>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>>>>
>>>>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>>>>if it means losing money.
>>>
>>> Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are
>>> your
>>> lying press
>>> releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26%
>>> since 1998.
>>>
>>> Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
>>>
>>>> Look at cigarette prohibition
>>>>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>>>>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
>>>
>>> I followed the money and it led to pharma.
>>>
>>> In 2002, 10 pharmaceutical companies made more profit than the other 490
>>> companies in the
>>> Fortune 500 COMBINED.
>>
>>So this is proof of what? Success in business? Thought that was worshipped
>>in your part of the world.
>
> It is proof the pharmaceutical industry has unrivaled economic and
> political power. We
> will soon be spending more on health care than on government. No other
> industry comes
> remotely close.
>
> Think of it this way. The average family of 3.5 people IS NOW SPENDING
> $24,000 per year on
> medical care. Picture how rich and powerful the automobile industry would
> be if every
> family bought a new car every year.
>
> We don't worship businesses that get caught lying. We punish them by not
> buying their
> products.
But you decline to hold big tobacco to the same standard. What do you
suppose is the difference there?
> Yuppie heroine Martha Stewart lost hundreds of millions for telling a
> small
> lie.
>
>>> The US spends twice as much per capita on health care compared to
>>> EVERY other country. We spend 16% of GDP, $7,000 for every man, woman
>>> and
>>> child.
>>
>>
>>Again this is proof of nothing other than the inherent ineffectiveness of
>>for profit health care.
>>Countries with proper health care systems are also campaigning against
>>public smoking. You think they all bought the con from big pharma as well?
>
> Yes, they did. The World Health Organization campaign against smoking
> ("framework") was
> authored and financed by US and UK pharma companies. It is a prime example
> of imposing
> Anglo culture on the rest of the world.
>
>>> The US pharmaceutical industry is ten times the size of the US tobacco
>>> industry. Pharma is
>>> expected to more than double in sales and profit between now and 2020. A
>>> demographic
>>> bubble of Baby Boomers is about to hit their prime drug consuming years.
>>> Pharma wants them
>>> to live as long as possible.
>>
>>
>>I want me to live as long as possible as well. Maybe I'm just funny that
>>way. Oddly enough, I enjoy my healthy lifestyle. I'm trying hard to think
>>what it is I'm sacrificing to achieve it.
>
> I'm trying hard to think why a healthy lifestyle requires imposing it on
> strangers against
> their will. Is your lifestyle a quasi-religion?
I'm not sure what would constitute a quasi-religion. Perhaps it is, but I'm
not evangelical about it, if thats what you mean.
Nobody is imposing anything on anybody against their will. You can still
smoke. You can still eat crap. You can still spend your evening watching
American Idol. You just can't force me or, more importantly, the employees
of any palce you patronise to do any of the above.
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
In article <DoNbk.80434$gc5.76166@pd7urf2no>,
Norm <Normgrant999@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>Seems to me that
>is about the time most of the "Beer Parlour" type of establishments in my
>part of the world converted to more of a sports bar atmosphere, and placed
>an increased emphasis on food service.
The same thing happened here years ago. Most of the places
open on Sunday with good food with craft beer are sports bars
which used to be sleaze pits. There was smoking throughout
until recently when it was confined to the bar area (smokers
in the act were confined to the bar area, the smoke was not),
Then two years ago, restaurants and bars went smokefree.
It was a logical progression from what people expected of
such places during the pre-cancerous era to modern times.
Even smokers agreed with smokefree restaurants.
There's little demand for the dark, dingy places where
old men sit around drinking, smoking and talking about
their experiences in this war or that. The emphasis is
food and smoke conflicts with the dining experience.
Science or no science, people like dining out and not coming
home smelling like an ashtray. They will not give that up.
In article <DoNbk.80434$gc5.76166@pd7urf2no>,
Norm <Normgrant999@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>Seems to me that
>is about the time most of the "Beer Parlour" type of establishments in my
>part of the world converted to more of a sports bar atmosphere, and placed
>an increased emphasis on food service.
The same thing happened here years ago. Most of the places
open on Sunday with good food with craft beer are sports bars
which used to be sleaze pits. There was smoking throughout
until recently when it was confined to the bar area (smokers
in the act were confined to the bar area, the smoke was not),
Then two years ago, restaurants and bars went smokefree.
It was a logical progression from what people expected of
such places during the pre-cancerous era to modern times.
Even smokers agreed with smokefree restaurants.
There's little demand for the dark, dingy places where
old men sit around drinking, smoking and talking about
their experiences in this war or that. The emphasis is
food and smoke conflicts with the dining experience.
Science or no science, people like dining out and not coming
home smelling like an ashtray. They will not give that up.
Re: If the state isn't willing, localities are.
In article <29qq641duhhktkhubpo483ps4tsurlfekc@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2008 18:39:00 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <rk2q649rst39qic96jbk8iv4jk36nmrcm7@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>>>>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>>>>>studies, as they did
>>>>>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>>>>>accountants. It's
>>>>>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>>>>>trying to write
>>>>>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>>>
>>>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>>>restaurants.
>>>>
>>>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>>
>>>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and
>insurance have lots of
>>>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters do.
>>
>>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
>
>Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
By "clout" do you mean money? With money you can buy organizing.
If so, smoking bans continue at the usual rapid pace.
Doesn't say much for repeal. Pharma's clout. Insurance money.
Doesn't look good for nicotine addicts.
>>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>
>My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to
>effete trendies and
>tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12
>.. would you like
>foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to
>real bars is apples
>and oranges.
Why prohibit alcohol when you can achieve the same goal
by banning smoking? I can't be the first person to think of that.
>>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists'
>are liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>California
>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>>
>>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>>>the accomodation
>>>>>industry.
>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wisconsin
>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>>
>>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>>
>>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>>
>>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>>if it means losing money.
>
>Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are
>your lying press
>releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26%
>since 1998.
Perhaps California's bars need to pay more to the state treasury
if they want to do well. But they don't. So they must be doing
well anyway. Robert, please, please, they don't care. They make
loads of money whether smoking is permitted or not. People don't go to
bars to smoke. They go to socialize. How many times do I have
to tell you that?
>Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
>
>> Look at cigarette prohibition
>>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
>
>I followed the money and it led to pharma.
You said Pharma is out of it. Follow the money to the states.
State bans are locked in place and others are soon to follow.
In article <29qq641duhhktkhubpo483ps4tsurlfekc@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2008 18:39:00 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <rk2q649rst39qic96jbk8iv4jk36nmrcm7@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>Supporting facts are on the Tavern League web site:
>>>>>>> http :// www .tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Antismokers can't steamroll the opposition when it comes to economic
>>>>>>>studies, as they did
>>>>>>>with medical studies. They don't even have qualified economists or
>>>>>>>accountants. It's
>>>>>>>hilarious to see lying epidemiologists (public health statisticians)
>>>>>>>trying to write
>>>>>>>economic studies and thinking no one will see through the obvious lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're right. Money talks. So far it's been talking loud and
>>>>>>clear since California banned smoking in bars in 1998.
>>>>>>California's law still stands. Bars must not be losing money.
>>>>>>The lie has been exposed.
>>>>>
>>>>>California bars are down 26% since 1998, relative to general retail and
>>>>>restaurants.
>>>>
>>>>Then why don't they repeal the ban for bars?
>>>
>>>Because the bar industry has almost no political clout. Pharma and
>insurance have lots of
>>>clout. Also, California voters don't support bars, as Wisconsin voters do.
>>
>>But you said Pharma was out of it. Insurance has a lot of money.
>
>Pharma is out of organizing. They still have as much clout as ever.
By "clout" do you mean money? With money you can buy organizing.
If so, smoking bans continue at the usual rapid pace.
Doesn't say much for repeal. Pharma's clout. Insurance money.
Doesn't look good for nicotine addicts.
>>How about New York? Don't they support bars? It's been 5 years.
>
>My guess is that New York bars are up. They sell foo-foo drinks to
>effete trendies and
>tourists .. watermelon juice with Midori and organic blackberries, $12
>.. would you like
>foudue or sushi with that? Gimme a break. Comparing New York bars to
>real bars is apples
>and oranges.
Why prohibit alcohol when you can achieve the same goal
by banning smoking? I can't be the first person to think of that.
>>>>>>>Their favorite trick in medical studies is maniuplating the subject
>>>>>>>population, so they
>>>>>>>include fast food restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking years ago.
>>>>>>>Another trick is
>>>>>>>leaving out a control group -- similar restaurants where smoking was not
>>>>>>>banned. Then they
>>>>>>>point to a tiny 1% sales increase as evidence sales were not hurt, while
>>>>>>>ignoring the fact
>>>>>>>that sales went up 20% in surrounding counties due to population
>>>>>>>increase or inflation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If they keep it up, average citizens will see anti 'scientists'
>are liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If, and that's a big if, they are liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>California' experience and all the states since then say they
>>>>>>are telling the truth: Smoking bans don't hurt business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, Robert, wishing it so won't make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are facts. The California retail economy grew 26% while bar
>>>>>employment stayed the
>>>>>same. That means bars fell behind other businesses by 26%.
>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants fell from 18% to 12%.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>California
>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>Establishments 106,254 113,307 6
>>>>>Employees 1,382,460 1,700,802 23
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>Establishments 62,682 72,849 14
>>>>>Employees 1,052,065 1,321,880 26
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>Establishments 22,842 26,826 17
>>>>>Employees 420,098 532,601 27
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>Establishments 4,191 3,335 -20
>>>>>Employees 29,244 29,270 0
>>>>>
>>>>>Control: Wisconsin is a state without smoking bans and many bars.
>>>>>Retail grew at a
>>>>>sluggish 4% but accomodations grew 18%. Bar employment grew faster than
>>>>>the accomodation
>>>>>industry.
>>>>>The ratio of bars to restaurants stayed the same at 66%.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wisconsin
>>>>> 1998 2006 %change
>>>>>Industry code 44__ (retail trade)
>>>>>Establishments 21,487 21,102 -2
>>>>>Employees 309,194 321,788 4
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 72__ (accomodation and food services)
>>>>>Establishments 13,051 14,120 8
>>>>>Employees 191,531 225,445 18
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7221 (full service restaurants)
>>>>>Establishments 4,562 4,801 5
>>>>>Employees 82,625 91,355 11
>>>>>
>>>>>Industry code 7224 (bars)
>>>>>Establishments 3,032 3,188 5
>>>>>Employees 13,372 18,013 35
>>>>>
>>>>> http :// censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl
>>>>
>>>>Yet smoking bans for bars are still in effect.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>>Is that your best rebuttal against accurate facts?
>>
>>It's proof. Money talks. States wouldn't have bans
>>if it means losing money.
>
>Bans are not proof that California bars are not losing money. Nor are
>your lying press
>releases. The above is proof the California bar industry declined 26%
>since 1998.
Perhaps California's bars need to pay more to the state treasury
if they want to do well. But they don't. So they must be doing
well anyway. Robert, please, please, they don't care. They make
loads of money whether smoking is permitted or not. People don't go to
bars to smoke. They go to socialize. How many times do I have
to tell you that?
>Or do you think the US Census Bureau is in the pocket of Big Tobacco?
>
>> Look at cigarette prohibition
>>in the 1920s. Every one repealed when they found out they
>>could tax cigarettes. Money, Robert. Follow the money.
>
>I followed the money and it led to pharma.
You said Pharma is out of it. Follow the money to the states.
State bans are locked in place and others are soon to follow.
Next: => Public Smoking Now ILLEGAL in Germany! <= tax, restrict, humiliate!
Previous: Tax, Restrict & Humiliate
